Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES (TOTAL EXPENDITURE UNDER CERTAIN ACTS OF PARLIAMENT),

Copy ordered, "of Return showing, so far as particulars are available, the total expenditure (other than out of loans for capital purposes) in England and Wales under certain Acts of Parliament during the years ended the 31st day of March, 1891, 1901, 1911, 1921, 1929, and 1930, respectively, and the total number of persons directly benefiting from the expenditure for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1929, together with similar particulars for Scotland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 101, of Session 1929–30)."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BOROUGH.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of disallowances for claims of benefit made at the Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange for the 12 months ending to the last convenient date; and the number of cases in which the decisions were reversed on appeal to the courts of referees?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): As the reply is somewhat long and contains a number of figures,
I will if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that the great number of disallowances at this Employment Exchange shows that they are rather unduly severe?

Miss BONDFIELD: Perhaps the hon. Member will read the reply.

Following is the reply:

Between 12th November, 1929, and 12th March, 1930, 1,617 claims to benefit made at the Borough Employment Exchange were disallowed by insurance officers and out of 384 appeals to courts of referees against disallowances by insurance officers 144 were recommended for allowance. As from 13th March, 1930, in accordance with the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, all disallowances have been imposed, in the first instance, by courts of referees, except in trade dispute cases. Between 13th March and 10th November, 1930, 3,079 claims made at the Borough Exchange were disallowed by the courts of referees. During this period there were no appeals to the court in connection with disallowances by insurance officers in trade dispute cases.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps she is still taking to promote industrial transference; and how many workers have been so transferred during the last four weeks?

Miss BONDFIELD: Industrial transference is being effected by placing persons from the depressed areas in employment elsewhere, either direct, or after a course of training at a centre or a spell of employment on a State-aided scheme. 1,998 persons were so transferred during the four weeks ending 24th November, 1930.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Lady say how many of these workers were transferred to the London area?

Miss BONDFIELD: I should like to have notice of that question

WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).

Sir K. WOOD: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour if she has any definite plans to place before the House for the relief of unemployment of the young men who have been recently discharged from Woolwich Arsenal and other young men and women in this area?

Miss BONDFIELD: Since the beginning of this year I understand that 135 employés of the Arsenal 21 years of age and under have been discharged and 55
resigned. Of these 53 are now registered as unemployed at the Woolwich Exchange. The Exchanges will make every effort to place these workpeople in suitable employment and, subject to the conditions laid down by the local authority, they can be considered for employment on the various grant-aided schemes in the area.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not the Minister of Labour think that there is a special obligation in the case of these young men under 21 years of age who have been dismissed by the Government, and who have not had any training for any other kind of work?

Miss BONDFIELD: The Government have a special obligation towards all young men in this position.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is there not an obligation in the case of other employers as well as the Government? Have they not an equal responsibility in regard to those whom they dismiss?

Sir K. WOOD: How does that help these young men?

Mr. MACLEAN: How does it help the men who are dismissed?

WORK SCHEMES (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour the estimated amount of the£135,000,000 sanctioned for Government schemes that has been spent to date, excluding expenditure from the Road Fund?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will endeavour to obtain this information and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Can the Minister of Labour say when the White Paper promised by the Prime Minister a month ago will be issued?

Miss BONDFIELD: That question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

VOLUNTARY AGENCY (ADMINISTRATIVEASSISTANCE).

Mr. LAWTHER: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour the names of those responsible for running voluntary agencies who have had the loan of members of the Ministry
of Labour staff; and the cost to her Department for the period ending October, 1930?

Miss BONDFIELD: The only case so far as I am aware is that of the agency organised by Mrs. C. M. Headlam, C.B.E., to which the services of a clerk were lent from 18th February, 1929, to 2nd August, 1929, at a total cost of about£61. The agency was, I believe, doing good work, but, as I explained in reply to a question on the subject on 20th March last, it was not considered justifiable to continue the arrangement any longer.

VACANCIES (SHOWDOWN COLLIERY).

Mr. LAWTHER: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour why, in the lists of vacancies notified by her Department to miners, it is stated that while miners are required at Snowdown Colliery, Kent, no applications will be considered from miners in Northumberland, Durham or South Wales?

Miss BONDFIELD: My hon. Friend appears to have been misinformed. Although the area from which labour is engaged is within the discretion c f the employers, there is no discrimination against men from Northumberland, Durham and South Wales who have the requisite qualifications and experience; and men have been engaged for Snowdown Colliery in recent months from each of those districts. Additional labour is not at present required at this colliery, and at the company's request Employment Exchanges in all parts of the country were so informed at the end. of October last.

Mr. LAWTHER: Is the Minister of Labour aware that in the month of August last the Department notified Employment Exchanges as stated in the question, and that it was upon that that I based the question?

STATISTICS.

Mr. FREEMAN: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she can now give any statistics or other information indicating the growth of unemployment in various countries during the present century?

Miss BONDFIELD: My hon. Friend will have received this information on Tuesday last.

Mr. FREEMAN: Can the right hon. Lady say whether she has any similar information from any other countries other than those mentioned in the report?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have given all the information available.

CLEVELAND DISTRICT.

Mr. MANSFIELD: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims to unemployment benefit that have been disallowed this year by the Middlesbrough court of referees from the Cleveland district on the grounds that the claimant is not normally employed in insurable employment?

Miss BONDFIELD: Between 13th March, 1930, and 10th November, 1930, 422 claims to benefit made at Employment Exchanges in the Cleveland district were disallowed by the Middlesbrough court of referees on the ground that the claimants were not normally insurable and would not normally seek to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment.

Mr. PALMER: Can the right hon. Member say what proportion of these claims were disallowed?

Miss BONDFIELD: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.

WOMEN (TRAINING).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN - DOYLE: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour how many women have availed themselves during the past 12 months of the special provision for the training of suitable unemployed women in domestic service, hospital and child nursing, and similar useful occupations; and what has been the result in terms of subsequent employment?

Miss BONDFIELD: The number of women and girls who, during the year ended 24th November, 1930, entered training under schemes controlled by the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment was 4,501. During the same period 3,635 trainees entered domestic or other work. The number in training on 29th November, 1930, was 1,168.

EXHIBITION GROUNDS, WEMBLEY.

Mr. THORNE: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Employment
Exchanges have had any difficulty in filling applications for employés made by firms whose places of business are situated in the old grounds of the Empire Exhibition at Wembley?

Miss BONDFIELD: The Employment Exchanges have had no difficulty in filling vacancies notified to them by employers in the Exhibition grounds at Wembley.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether the Government have tried to get some information circulated as regards this matter and whether it has been in any way successful?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, if the hon. Member has in mind the Shufliex Rubber Company, I had the most exhaustive inquiries made, and all the vacancies notified by that firm were filled.

BENEFIT (FOOD TICKETS).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she will consider the issue of food tickets or vouchers for groceries at the local shops by the Employment Exchange offices in part payment of unemployment benefit?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, Sir.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Lady aware that this system worked very successfully during the War?

HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Will the Minister of Labour say what objection she has to adopting this method [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] Is she aware that in many cases a considerable amount of the unemployed benefit is utilised for purposes with which I do not think the Government would agree?

HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

Miss BONDFIELD: Can the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich, East (Sir F. Hall) guarantee that food tickets would not be improperly used?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of the answer—

Sir F. HALL: You do not like it. Why not be honest about it?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the right hon. Lady has found from her experience that money placed into
the hands of the mothers of the working class is better spent than given in this fashion?

Miss BONDFIELD: indicated assent
.

CHART (TEA ROOM, HOUSE OF COMMONS).

Major COLVILLE: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will take steps to bring up to date the chart in the Tea Room showing the figures of unemployment in various trades?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have arranged to have this done.

Major COLVILLE: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the chart of British unemployment figures has been displaced to make room for a Russian propaganda poster; and does she not consider that an interest in the affairs of this country would be preferable to an interest in the affairs of Russia?

CHRISTMAS WEEK (BENEFIT).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the destitution to which many families have been brought by prolonged unemployment, she will obtain powers to provide for the allowances to the unemployed and their dependants being doubled for Christmas week?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid this is not practicable.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What does the Minister mean by saying that the proposal in the question is not practicable? Is it not practicable for us to be more generous at that season of the year than at any other time?

Miss BONDFIELD: May I point out to the hon. Member that the suggestion is, legislatively, not practicable.

Mr. KEDWARD: Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is done by many boards of guardians?

Mr. McGOVERN: Is it not more important to feed the bodies of the unemployed than to feed the minds of the middle-class with opera?

COAL INDUSTRY (DISPUTE, SCOTLAND).

Mr. HARDIE: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the terms proposed by the coal-owners of Scotland do not comply with the provisions of the Coal Mines Act,
1930, the miners thereby rendered idle will be paid full benefit at the Employment Exchanges?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is not possible to say in advance what the decision of the statutory authorities may be.

Mr. HARDIE: In view of the fact that the workers concerned are obeying the law while the employers are disobeying the law, cannot sonic definite statement be made on this matter; and have not the Government any interest in what is to take place in regard to Employment Exchange conditions in the circumstances I have indicated?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have no authority in this matter.

FLOUR MILLING INDUSTRY (DISPLACED WORKERS).

Mr. EDMUNDS: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has received a report from the National Joint Industrial Council for the Flour Milling Industry as to what is being done by that council in the matter of compensation to employés displaced by the closing of redundant flour mills; and whether she is able to state the number of flour mills closed down since 1st August, 1929, the total sack capacity of these mills, the number of workers displaced, the number since placed in other jobs, the total amount of compensation paid to the displaced workers, and the total amount of compensation now being paid per week?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am aware of the general nature of this scheme, but am not in possession of all the details asked for. I will see how far it is. possible to obtain them.

PROSECUTIONS AND SENTENCES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the cases of certain men, first offenders, who have been committed to prison for offences. under the Unemployment Insurance Act; if he is aware that in many other cases fines only are imposed; whether any advice or instruction has been given to magistrates with regard to these first offenders; whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Harry Westerman, a first offender, of 69, Wincolmlee,
Hull, a tailor's cutter, who was committed for 28 days in Hull last week for one of these offences; and whether, in view of his previous good character, any remission of the sentence can be recommended?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): From time to time the attention of my right hon. Friend has been called to such cases, but in some of them it would be a misnomer to describe the defendant as a first offender. In the case referred to my right hon. Friend is informed that while the defendant pleaded guilty to one offence committed on one day, there was proof of minimum of 36 other offences on other days over a period of six months. Courts properly exercise a discretion in deciding what to do when guilt is proved. I understand that about 10 per cent. of offenders are bound over, 73 per cent. fined, and 17 per cent. sent to prison. My right hon. Friend regrets that he can find no sufficient ground for recommending remission in the present case.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that a first offence means the first time that the offender is charged—the first. time he is found out—and, in view of the fact that the person concerned in this case is only a lad of 19, could not further consideration be given to the matter?

Mr. SHORT: I think that my right hon. Friend or his predecessor went fully into these matters and were aware of all the circumstances.

ALLOTMENTS (COMMITTEE).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 81.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the names of the members of the Committee to promote the cultivation of allotments by the unemployed; and what its functions are intended to be in view of the proposals now before the House in the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The Committee is constituted as follows:

Sir William Waterlow, Bt., K.B.E. (Chairman),

The Rt. Hon. Sir Francis D. Acland, Bt.,

Miss Maud Bower

Captain L. F. Ellis, C.B.E., D.S.O., M.C.,

Dr. Joan Fry,

My hon. Friend the Member for West Toxteth,

The hon. Member for Mid Bedford, J. E. C. Johnson, Esq.,

Alderman F. Moore,

F. M. Osborn, Esq.,

The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Plymouth,

G. H. Purvis, Esq., F.C.S.,

John H. Robson, Esq.,

George W. Whitlock, Esq.,

with

Mr. C. W. Sabin of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries to be liaison officer between the Committee and the Ministry; and

Mr. G. W. Giles, F.R.H.S., to be its Secretary.

The Committee has been set up for the following purposes:

(1) To promote generally the cultivation of allotment gardens by unemployed persons or persons who are not in full time employment, and to stimulate the formation of voluntary local committees or societies for the furtherance of that object; and
(2) To make arrangements for the provision of seeds, fertilisers and equipment for any such persons and for this purpose to constitute a society within the meaning of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, i.e., an unincorporated body of persons.

Mr. SCOTT: Will the operations of that Committee also apply to Scotland?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, the terms of reference are general.

Mr. SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland we have a National Union of Allotment Holders which is doing good work, and does he not consider that that work should be made available?

Dr. ADDISON: We are in conference with that body.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to put on that Committee any men who have had actual experience in the working of allotments?

Dr. ADDISON: I think that about half the members of the Committee have served in connection with the National Allotment Holders' Association for quite a long time.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has any information as to the weekly wages of agricultural workers who have been engaged in wheat production on State farms in Soviet Russia during 1930?

Commander BELLAIRS: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has any information as to the hours worked by agricultural workers on the State farms in Soviet Russia in 1930, the extent to which they were compulsorily drafted to work in other occupations such as the State forests, and the compulsory levies on wages such as for loans and for the State trade unions?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is necessarily rather long and contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

I have no figures of wages and working hours for the year 1930. According to official statistics, the average earnings, of manual workers, during the period July-September, 1929, on 1,333 State farms (Sorkhozy), including farms producing wheat, were as follow:


Class of Worker.
Proportion of each class of worker employed at 1st July, 1929.
Monthly earnings.
Daily earnings.



Per cent.
Roubles.*
Copecks.*


Permanent
4.6
42.40
163


seasonal
16.1
32.40
129


Temporary
69.3
—
97

* One rouble, or 100 copecks. equals 2s. l½. approximately, at the par of exchange.

In addition, payments ill kind were made, the value of which is not stated for the period referred to; but in June, 1929, the value of these payments is stated to have increased the earnings of permanent, seasonal and temporary workers by 0.3, 1.2 and 3.7 per cent., respectively.

Earnings on State farms, it is stated, increase according to the degree of mechanisation. On the completely mechanised farms of the Grain Trust (Zernotrest), the average earnings of manual workers during the period July-September, 1929, are given as follows:

Class of Worker.
Monthly earnings.
Daily earnings.



Roubles.*
Copecks.*


Permanent
…
…
75.70
296


Seasonal
…
…
61.30
244


Temporary
…
…
—
145


* One rouble, or 100 copecks, equals 2s. 1½d. approximately, at the par of exchange.

No statistics of the hours worked in 1029 by agricultural workers on State farms are given; but, in 1928, the length of the working day, it is stated, ranged from 8.1 to 9.2 hours according to the season of the year.

As regards the extent to which agricultural workers on state farms were compulsorily drafted to work in other occupations, I have no information.

Deductions from wages are, I understand, regulated by three Orders issued in March and April, 1930, by the General Council of Trade Unions of the Soviet Union. According to these Orders, the total amount of all deductions from wages, other than trade union dues, contributions to mutual aid funds, instalments on subscriptions to State loans, and contributions to the Communist party must not exceed 3 per cent. of the total wage.

The rates of deduction for trade union, etc., purposes are as follows:

Nature of deduction:

Subscription to State loans.

Trade Union dues.

Contributions to mutual aid funds.

Amount of deduction from wages:

Must not exceed half a month's earnings in any one year.

Two per cent.

One per cent.

As from 1st January, 1931, it is proposed to reduce trade union dues and contributions to mutual aid funds to 1.5 and 0.5 per cent. respectively.

Commander BELLAIRS: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she will give directions for the Labour Gazette to publish information from time to time as to labour, conditions in Soviet Russia in regard to compulsory labour, wages, compulsory levies on wages, the distribution of food cards, the purchasing
power of wages, and other factors that bear on the condition of the workers in export trades?

Miss BONDFIELD: So far as it is available, information concerning hours and wages based on official statistics is published from time to time in the Ministry of Labour Gazette. Space in the Gazette, however, is limited and I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that information concerning Russian conditions is published regularly by the International Labour Office in their weekly publication "Industrial and Labour Information."

Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Lady tell us the last occasion on which any information whatever in regard to Soviet Russia was given in the Labour Gazette?

Miss BONDFIELD: I must, ask for notice of that question.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that there are 1,000,000 industrial workers in Russia working five days a week and no more?

Commander BELLAIRS: Does not that question show the ignorance of hon. Members on the subject?

WORKS COUNCILS.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour in how many industrial concerns in this country works councils are in active operation; and whether she proposes in the near future to issue a report on their activities?

Miss BONDFIELD: The latest authoritative statement on the position is contained in the "Survey of Industrial Relations" issued by the Committee on Industry and Trade. I am afraid the expense of bringing this information up-to-date would not be justified.

Mr. MANDER: As there is now a Works Councils Bill before the House will the right hon. Lady try to obtain all the information she can for the benefit of Members?

Miss BONDFIELD: Certainly.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has recent information as to the operation of the German Works Councils Act?

Miss BONDFIELD: From such information as I have on this subject it would appear that no important development has taken place in recent years.

JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.

Mr. P. OLIVER: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour how many joint industrial councils are at present in active operation; and whether any new councils have been set up in the course of the last three years?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am sending to the hon. Member a complete list of the Joint (Whitley) Councils in operation within the knowledge of my Department. The number of National Joint Industrial Councils in the Industrial Group in this list is 42. Two of these councils have been set up in the course of the last three years one having been previously an interim Industrial Reconstruction Committee.

MANNESMANN TUBE COMPANY (DISPUTE).

Mr. WALKER: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that the British Mannesmann Tube Company, Limited, have locked out over 1,500 of their work-people at Landore, near Swansea; and whether, seeing that the company have declined to accept an offer made on behalf of the workpeople to submit the questions in dispute to arbitration, in pursuance of the conciliation and arbitration board agreement between the company and their workpeople, she will consider what steps can be taken in the matter?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am aware of the dispute to which my hon. Friend refers. I hope that the parties will be able to reach a settlement themselves.

Mr. WALKER: Is the Minister of Labour aware that this company has several Government contracts on hand, the execution of which is being delayed by the attitude of the firm?

Miss BONDFIELD: That question should be addressed to the Department concerned.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Is the right hon. Lady aware that a good deal of the
difficulty in these works is due to the fact that the company employ German managers and supervisors who adopt unusual methods in the treatment of their men?

Miss BONDFIELD: I hope that all these matters will be considered by the representatives of the parties concerned.

HOURS OF INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT BILL.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that shop assistants and domestic servants have been excluded from the provisions of the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill, she intends to introduce special measures to regulate the hours of employment of these workers?

Miss BONDFIELD: A Select Committee has been appointed to consider and report upon proposals for limiting the hours of work of shop assistants and improving the conditions of their employment. No action is at present in contemplation as regards domestic servants.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is it not the declared policy of the Government to take this question into consideration and bring in legislation?

Year.
Permits issued in respect of Domestic Servants.
Permits issued in respect of Theatrical, Vaudeville, Concert, Artists and
Musician.
Others.
Total.


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)


1927
…
…
…
…
2,429
1,849
2,656
6.934


1928
…
…
…
…
3,415
2,389
2,662
8,466


1929
…
…
…
…
4,275
2,601
3,034
9,910


1930 (up to 31st October, 1930)
4,575
2,465
2,660
9,700

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 40.
asked the Home Secretary how many aliens nave been deported from this country during the past year on the grounds that there has been evasion of a, permit to reside in Great Britain for purposes of education; and what has been the nature of the evasion?

Mr. SHORT: In a considerable number of cases aliens who have obtained leave

Miss BONDFIELD: A Select Committee is sitting at the moment.

Mr. MANDER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am afraid it will not be possible to take this Bill before Christmas.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the international importance of this Bill, will not the Prime Minister consider giving it precedence over the Trade Disputes Act, (Amendment) Bill?

ALIENS.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of aliens that have been allowed to take up employment in this country during the years 1927, 1928, 1929, and up to the latest available date in 1930?

Miss BONDFIELD: There are no available statistics as to aliens already in the country who take up employment. As regards permits to enable aliens to enter the country and take up employment for limited periods I have had a table prepared which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

to land as students and have subsequently taken employment have been required to leave the country and have done so. This is a matter which is constantly under the attention of my right hon. Friend. Statistics of these cases are not available, and my right hon. Friend does not think that they could be compiled without entailing an unjustifiable amount of labour and expense.

CELLULOID TOYS (ACCIDENT,PENDLETON).

Mr. SHILLAKER: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a verdict of accidental death returned at Pendleton on Ida Hallam, 18 months old, of 3, Witbycombe Street, Pendleton, who suecumbed to burns sustained through a celluloid doll with which she had been playing near the kitchen fire catching alight; and whether he will consider introducing legislation to prohibit the manufacture of celluloid toys for children?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend has seen a newspaper report of the accident but is afraid that legislation on the lines suggested is impracticable. The danger of celluloid toys was considered by the Royal Commission on Fire Brigades and Fire Prevention which reported in 1923, and I would refer any hon. Friend to paragraphs 152 and 153 of their report.

Mr. SHILLAKER: Will the Under-Secretary forward me a copy of that report

Mr. SHORT: Certainly.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: Are there any regulations against celluloid toys?

Mr. SHORT: I must ask for notice of that question.

Lieut.- Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Can the Under-Secretary say if these are German toys?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, they are Russian toys.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES.

ANILINE WORKERS (CANCER).

Mr. P. OLIVER: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to report on the investigation being carried out by the London Cancer Hospital, with the assistance of the medical inspectorate of the Factory Department, into the incidence of the disease of cancer of the bladder among workers in aniline factories?

Mr. SHORT: This investigation has been continued, but I am unable to hazard any opinion as to when conclusive results may be expected. The hon. Member
bar will appreciate that investigations into the causation of cancer in connection with particular occupations are always very difficult, and that a special difficulty arises in the present investigation, owing to the fact that the total number of fatalities from cancer of the bladder among aniline workers is quite small, and the collection of data, therefore, very laborious.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Has the hon. Gentleman inquired from the life assurance offices, as they may have some useful information on the matter?

Mr. SHORT: I must ask for notice of that question.

CARD ROOM DUST (INQUIRY).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 39.
asked the Home Secretary the date upon which the Departmental Committee on Dust in Card Rooms was set up; and the date upon which it is likely to report?

Mr. SHORT: This committee was appointed on the 24th June, 1927, and the chairman anticipates that it may be another six months before it can present its report. The long duration of the inquiry is explained by the difficult and complicated nature of the problems before the committee. The solution of these questions has involved a great deal of research, both statistical and medical, and the medical part of the inquiry has not yet been completed.

Mr. HACKING: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many times this committee has met in the last three years?

Mr. SHORT: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. MANDER: 35.
asked the Home Secretary when it is proposed to introduce the Bill dealing with the working hours of children?

Mr. SHORT: The employment of children is already regulated by the Education Act, 1921. It is proposed to include in the Children Bill now in preparation sonic further provisions to empower regulations to be made for the employment of young persons under 18 in certain occupations. In the meantime my right hon. Friend has arranged, in
consultation with the Minister of Labour, for the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment to undertake an inquiry regarding actual conditions of employment in various occupations in which the hour's of employment are not at present limited by Statute.

Mr. MANDER: Is it proposed to bring in a Bill this Session?

Mr. SHORT: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that it was promised last Session, may we not expect a statement on the matter soon?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

REPORTS.

Mr. GOULD: 37.
asked the Home Secretary if he will consider the advisability of extending the system of the publication of annual reports by the police in London and the county boroughs to the counties, in order that the public may be kept informed of the services by the police in those areas?

Mr. SHORT: This is a matter which my right hon. Friend thinks he must leave to the discretion of the local police authorities.

Mr. GOULD: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the county joint standing committees?

Mr. SHORT: I understand that this is entirely a matter for the standing joint committees and not for my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS.

Mr. KELLY: 48.
asked the Home Secretary what are the regulations which govern the grant of pensions to members of the Metropolitan Police Force, full period and short period pensions?

Mr. SHORT: The pension conditions of members of the Metropolitan Police Force are governed by the Police Pensions Act, 1921, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend. It is impossible to give the scales of pensions without exceeding the permissible limits of an oral reply, but they will be found
in Part I of the First Schedule to the Act, which must be read with Section 2. If I can assist my hon. Friend with any further information perhaps he would write to me.

Mr. KELLY: While thanking the hon. Member for his reply, may I ask whether a short-period pension could be granted for any reasons other than medical reasons?

Mr. SHORT: I should want notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANGEROUS DRUGS.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 41.
asked the Home Secretary when the report of i.he preliminary conference on the limitation of manufacture of dangerous drugs, recently held in this country. will be available to Members of Parliament?

Mr. SHORT: The report of this meeting of Government representatives from the manufacturing countries, which was one of the stages in the working out of the League scheme for the limitation of the manufacture of dangerous drugs, has been sent to the League, and, I am informed, is now in course of being printed. I am, afraid I cannot say how soon copies will be available.

Lieut. - Colonel FREMANTLE.: When they are available, will they then be available to all Members of Parliament who may wish to have them?

Mr. SHORT: I will inquire into that matter and let my hon. and gallant Friend know.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTORING ACCIDENT, CHELSEA.

Mr. F. SMITH: 43.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a fatal accident which occurred at Chelsea on 12th November, caused by a woman driving a motor ear; and whether, in view of the evidence given and the circumstances revealed at the inquest on 15th November, it is intended to institute proceedings against those concerned?

Mr. SHORT: The matter has been under consideration by the Commissioner of Police, and I am informed that proceedings are being instituted.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (ALLOWANCES).

Mr. EVERARD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need for national economy and in order to set an example to the country, he will set up a Select Committee to inquire into the practicability of reducing the salaries of Members of Parliament by 12½ per cent.?

The PRIME MINISTER: The salary of Members of Parliament was fixed at its present level in 1911, and in my judgment it cannot now be regarded as more than adequate. In the absence of a general desire in this House to examine the possibility of a reduction, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a Select Committee.

Mr. EVERARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the directors of certain industrial firms have made sacrifices in this way, and does he not think that Members of Parliament should do the same?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is so, but it is not so much a matter of the sacrifice made as of the residuum after it is made.

Mr. HANNON: What is the use of paying lip service to economy in our public services if some gesture of this kind is not made?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take an opportunity of testing the opinion of Members of the House on this question?

Mr. DAY: Is there any objection to Members forgoing their salaries?

The PRIME MINISTER: If hon. Members wish to forgo their salaries, the Paymaster-General undoubtedly would be very glad to receive them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CADET CORPS.

Commander SOUTHBY: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Education what facilities he is prepared to offer to cadet corps; what are the terms upon which such facilities can be offered; and whether they will include any concessions as regards cheap railway fares?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I assume that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the facilities in regard to camp equipment which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is offering to approved juvenile organisations. This offer is at present being considered by the Juvenile Organisations Committee of the Board of Education, and until I have received their report I shall not be able to make any detailed statement. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I contemplate offering any facilities to cadet corps which will not be equally available for other juvenile organisations. The granting of concessions for cheap railway fares is a matter entirely for the railway companies. Under their existing arrangements reduced fares are available for parties of juveniles belonging to organisations affiliated to or approved by the Juvenile Organisations Committee.

Commander SOUTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether he is still in communication with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War with regard to the future of the cadet corps, and, if so, when will he be in a position to make some statement about it?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have nothing more to say than I have said just now. I am not in communication with my right hon. Friend on the subject.

Commander SOUTHBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for War, when asked questions on this point, invariably refers the questioner to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I suppose he was referring to what I have told the hon. and gallant Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.

Mr. DAY: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the number of children in England and Wales between the ages of five and 16 who were ascertained by the education authorities to be mentally deficient; the number of these who were ascertained to be educable; the number who were
ascertained to be ineducable; the number of such children who were attending schools, institutions and other centres; and are there any statistics that will show the number receiving home training?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: According to the latest returns available, 32,775 educable mentally defective children have been ascertained by local education authorities in England and Wales; of these, 28,598 were attending schools or other institutions. I am afraid that I am unable to give figures for ineducable children on a comparable basis, but I am informed that the names of 3,274 children were notified to local authorities under the Mental Deficiency Acts during the year 1929, of whom 352 were sent to:institutions.

Captain CR00KSHANK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if these schools for mentally deficient children are day schools?

MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.

Mr. RAMSAY: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that a large number of children are boarded out into private families in certain areas by corporations who pay for the ordinary maintenance of such children; and whether the educational authorities in the areas in which these corporations are situated or the educational authorities of the areas to which these children have been sent will be responsible for the payment of the maintenance grants in the event of the Education (School Attendance) Bill as drafted becoming an Act 0: Parliament?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: If I rightly understand the cases to which the hon. Member refers, no maintenance allowances would be payable. The body which pays for the maintenance of the child would be excluded from receiving the allowance by the prescribed income limits, and the person who receives the child would be excluded because he or she would not be maintaining the child.

RURAL WALES (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, having regard to the recommendations which are contained in the report of the Departmental Committee
on Education in Rural Wales and the widespread interest taken in the report, he will consider the possibility of publishing a cheap edition of the English and Welsh versions so as to make it available for more general circulation?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The price of this report is governed by the general rule relating to Government publications, and I do not think that an exception in this case would be possible.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Is it not a fact that the actual cost of printing and publishing 2,000 English and 1,000 Welsh versions of this report was£78 10s., or approximately Od. a copy, whereas 3s. a copy has been charged, and is that not a case of profiteering on the part of His Majesty's Government?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I was not aware of those facts.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to take such legislative and other action as may be necessary with a view to giving effect to the various proposals contained in the report of the Departmental Committee on Education in Rural Wales?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Many of the proposals contained in this report are for the consideration, in the first instance, of local education and other authorities in Wales and Monmouthshire. Until these authorities have had time to consider the Committee's recommendations as a whole, I think it undesirable that I should come to any decision on the proposals which would necessitate action on my part.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Is it not essential that some legislative measures should be introduced forthwith if the Education (School Attendance) Bill is to be administered as it should be in the rural counties of Wales?

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Sir K. WOOD: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government has yet devised any practical scheme for getting old people out of industry by means of augmented pensions?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): No, Sir.

Sir K. WOOD: Is this scheme being avoided in order that the right hon. Gentleman may promise it again for the next General Election?

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the right hon. Gentleman's fertile mind will provide us with a scheme, we shall be very pleased.

Mr. LEES: How often did the late Government try to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's wish?

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 55.
asked the Minister of Health why Mrs. R. A. Coulling, of 10, Artillery Street South, Colchester, whose husband, as a member of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Insurance Fund, paid over 104 contributions between 15th July, 1912, and 9th November, 1925, and who after that date was in such poor health that he was only able to do one day's work between 9th November, 1925, and the date of his death in 1929, has been refused a. pension

Mr. GREENWOOD: Mrs. Coulling's claim for a widow's pension failed because the late Mr. Coulling ceased to be employed in November, 1924, and as for some time thereafter he was engaged in hawking on his own account, he ceased to be an insured person in November, 1925. He again became employed in July, 1928, but only paid one contribution thereafter, and his widow's claim for pension had to be refused on the ground of insufficiency of contributions.

Mr. LEWIS: Why, when the Act clearly says "the date of entry into insurance," does the right hon. Gentleman administer it as though the words were "date of re-entry into insurance"

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the hon. Member might ask that question of Ids right hon. Friend the Member for Edgba.ston (Mr. Chamberlain), with whose view I agree.

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: 59.
asked the Minister of Health the nature of the legal difficulty, necessitating reference to the High Court, which has arisen in connection with certain types of claims for widows' pensions submitted by widows whose husbands died prior to January, 1926; the approximate number of claims
involved; and the probable date when the matter will be heard in the High Court?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The question arising in connection with claims for widows' pensions under the Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, which it has been found necessary to refer to the High Court for decision, is, whether during a period of incapacity for work, 'a person retains the normal occupation which he followed immediately before the onset of the incapacity; the number of claims awaiting the decision of the Court is approximately 2,000; the ease has already been put down and all possible steps are being taken to expedite the hearing, but the actual date has not yet been fixed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. MANDER: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation enabling shopkeepers and employers to be included in a scheme of State insurance?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 8th April last to the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) on the same subject.

Mr. MANDER: Is not this one of the matters which was referred to a. sub-committee of the Cabinet last Session?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I said that in the reply to which I have refereed the hon. Member.

Sir K. WOOD: Is not this one of the matters which the right hon. Gentleman also promised at the last General Election?

Mr. ROWSON: 57.
asked the Minister of Health if it is his intention to take any action to keep in insurance those people who have suffered prolonged periods of unemployment and whose insurance lapses on 31st December next unless the Ministry takes some action on lines that were taken a year ago?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is considering the case of those insured persons who, through long-continued unemployment, will be in danger of losing health insurance and pension rights on
31st December next; and whether he has any proposals for safeguarding the funds of the approved societies and, at the same time, preventing those persons from losing their rights?

Mr. GREENWOOD: This matter is engaging the close attention of the Government, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Mr. BATEY: Is it hoped to make a statement before Christmas?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think that I can promise to make a statement next week.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANS: 62.
asked the Minister of Health whether the committee he set up for the investigation of the causes for the increased claims for sickness and disablement benefits has reported?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir. The Committee has not yet completed its investigation, but it is expected that it will be possible to issue a statement at an early date.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will that early date be before Christmas?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot possibly say more than that it will be within about a month.

Oral Answers to Questions — INSURANCE CARDS (STAMPING).

Mr. JENKINS: 58.
asked the Minister of health the number of cases where proceedings have been taken against employers who have deducted money from workmen's wages for health and unemployment insurance purposes and who have not stamped the workmen's cards, thereby depriving employés of benefits; the extent of the fines inflicted by the court upon such employers; and what steps will he take to ensure protection for the insured persons?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The number of employers prosecuted in England and Wales in 1929 for failing to stamp their employés' health insurance cards or unemployment books, or both, was 1,052, and the fines amounted to£4,897, or approximately£4 13s. od. per employer. In a large proportion of the cases deductions for insurance had been made from
the employés' wages, but I cannot give the exact number. Nor can I say how many employés (if any) were deprived of benefits owing to their employers' noncompliance, but any such employé is protected by Section 98 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924 and Section 24 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, which entitle him to recover from the employer the amount of health or unemployment insurance benefit lost.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACTS.

Mr. FREEMAN: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the difference in the administration of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts in Scotland from that of England and Wales, he is taking any steps to remedy this anomaly?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 27th ultimo to the hart, Member for Banff (Major Wood) on the same subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLIND PERSONS (WAGES).

Mr. FREEMAN: 61.
asked the. Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that an adequate living wage is not always obtained for blind people by means of piecework, it is his intention to introduce legislation to secure this result':

Mr. GREENWOOD: The fact that the actual earnings of blind persons are not generally sufficient to provide a living wage is met by the payment of supplementary allowances in augmentation of earnings, and I do not therefore see the necessity for the legislation suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Is it the intention of the Government to assist blind persons by granting pensions?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 63.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the danger of infection by persons suffering from tuberculosis who are discharged to their homes after treatment in sanatoria;
and whether he will consider the introduction of some form of after-care and treatment for persons suffering with tuberculosis after their discharge from hospital?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Those persons who receive treatment for tuberculosis in sanatoria are instructed in the precautions necessary to avoid the risk of infecting others, and it is the duty or the local medical officer of health to take such steps as are necessary or desirable to prevent the spread of infection. As regards the second part of the question, the appropriate local authorities have full power to provide for the treatment and after-care of tuberculous patients.

Mr. KINLEY: Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government propose to increase the financial assistance given to local authorities for this purpose?

CHEESE (TINFOIL WRAPPING).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether the warning conveyed in the annual report of the Ministry of Health as to the potential danger of the practice of wrapping cheeses in tinfoil was based on a report of an official analyst of the Ministry; and whether the samples examined were of British or of foreign origin?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The report quoted was that of a public analyst appointed by a local authority. The appointment of such an officer is subject to the approval of my Department, who require to be satisfied as to the competence of the person appointed. I understand that some of the samples examined were British, and that some were imported.

Sir C. CAYZER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that a grave warning of this kind based on such slender evidence is calculated to do a great deal of harm to an important industry?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not accept the lion. Member's suggestion that there is slender evidence.

Sir C. CAYZER: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received a number of protests from cheese-makers who claim that their products are not contaminated in this way?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Quite so, but it nevertheless remains true that a distinguished public analyst has said that in certain cases food was contaminated.

VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS COMMISSION.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Voluntary Hospitals Commission, which he set up in accordance with the report of the Cave Committee of 1921, is still in existence; what are its duties; of whom it is composed; how many local committees are working in association with it; and whether it reports annually to the Ministry of Health

Mr. GREENWOOD: The work of the Commission terminated with the issue of their final report in 1928, and the remaining parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.

INFANT MORTALITY.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 71.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give the infant mortality for England and Wales for each of the last 10 years and the main reason for the increase in the years 1924 and 1929, respectively?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) on Monday last. As regards the last part, I am advised that the increase in 1924 was mainly due to an epidemic of influenza, and in 1929 to a similar epidemic coupled with an epidemic of whooping cough.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it rather strange that these outbreaks of influenza coincide with the advent of a Socialist Government

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. and gallant Member saddles me with that responsibility, I must inform him that during my period of office infant mortality has reached its lowest point.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: On a point of Order. The Miaister's reply refers only to one quarter of one particular year.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING RELIEF, ST. PANCRAS.

Mr. CARTER: 66.
asked the Minister of Health the total amount of money of which industrialists and others in the administrative borough of St. Pancras have been relieved in rates due to the De-rating Act?

Mr. GREENWOOD: On the bases of (i) rates in the£ provisionally estimated for the standard year in order to give effect to the provisions of Section 100 of the Local Government Act, 1929, and (ii) unreduced and reduced rateable values as defined in the Act and provisionally ascertained, it is calculated that the occupiers of industrial and freight transport hereditaments in the Metropolitan Borough of St. Pancras have been relieved by the de-rating provisions of the Act of rates amounting to about£130,600 a year. According to the provisional calculations, the poundage of the rates payable by the general body of the ratepayers in the borough has been neither increased nor decreased by the operation of Parts I, V and VI of the Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

RELIEF.

Mr. SCURR: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether, under the Relief Regulation Order of 1930 made by the Minister, any man who accepts relief is bound by that Order to attend training and work centres?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir. What the Order in question in fact does is to require a public assistance authority to make such arrangements as are practicable in the circumstances of their area for setting to work able-bodied persons to whom relief other than institutional relief is afforded, for training and instructing such men in some suitable form of useful work, and for their attendance at suitable classes in physical training or of an educational character. The authority is to make due provision in such arrangements for securing that the work, training or instruction shall be suitable to the age, physical capacity and intelligence of the several classes of able-bodied men to whom the arrangements apply.
The position under the Order is, therefore, that an obligation to put men on
test work as a condition of relief could not arise in any area unless arrangements had been made for the provision of work of that kind suitable to all classes of the able-bodied, and even in that case the Order gives the local authority a dispensing power, subject to the power of the Minister to disallow, if he thinks fit, relief granted without test. The Order was deliberately framed to give such elasticity as would obviate a rigid requirement that every able-bodied man should as a matter of obligation be put on test work suitable or otherwise.

Mr. NAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of the London County Council public assistance committee, who is a Member of this House, has made a public statement to the effect that a man who accepts relief must, on the terms of the Minister's Order, attend a training or work centre?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes, my attention was drawn to that statement, and the answer which I have given shows that it is entirely out of harmony with the Order.

Mr. STRAUSS: Is the object of this statement of the chairman of the committee to place on the Government blame for the maladministration of the London County Council?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the hardship now existing among the unemployed and sick poor in the face of the cold weathr and the cost of coal, he will take steps to circularise the local authorities asking them to increase the payments in respect of relief, and particularly to make an increase during the Christmas and New Year weeks?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have already drawn the attention of public assistance authorities to the importance of carefully adapting outdoor relief to the needs of the case and of giving relief which is adequate in amount, and I do not think that any further circular is required. As regards the last part of the question, Article 19 of the Public Assistance Order authorises special allowances at Christmas time, or, where it is the practice to celebrate New Year's Day rather than Christmas Day, at the commencement of the new year.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not the Minister aware that this will not add any charge on the Exchequer, which already contributes grants to assist local authorities, and will he not now use his influence, seeing that he has the power, on local authorities to double the grant given to these folk during the weeks when they are up against the cold weather?

Mr. GREENWOOD: My hon. Friend has used the words "influence" and "power." I have exerted what influence I have, but I have not any power.

Mr. McGOVERN: Seeing that it is acknowledged that no unemployed man's child can be maintained on 2s. a week, will the right hon. Gentleman try and compel local authorities to raise that amount?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The House is well aware that I have nothing whatever to do with the administration of Poor Law in Scotland.

Mr. KIRKWOD: This question does not apply to Scotland, but to Britain; that is why I put it down. I put it first to the Minister of Labour and then to the Secretary of State for Scotland—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has received an answer.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Minister of Health entitled to say that he is not responsible for Scotland when a question is put to him which refers to England and not to Scotland? Is there any reason why the Minister of Health should not answer questions dealing with England and have nothing to do with Scotland at all?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: No point of Order arises.

Mr. McGOVERN: I would respectfully submit that the Minister has not answered the question as to whether he is going to see that the local authorities are advised to raise the amount for children. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not required to !"] No, but decency compels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Raise it on the Adjournment !"] Smug complacency.

ADMINISTRATION, LONDON AREA.

Mr. SMITHERS: 69.
asked the Minister of Health what action he has taken or proposes to take, as the result of his reception of a deputation from the London County Council on 1st December, with respect to the administration of the Poor Law in the London area; and will he state the section of the Act under which his action, if any, is taken?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The deputation which came before me on the 1st December was not from the London County Council but from the London Labour party, and I propose to communicate with the London County Council regarding certain representations laid before me by the deputation. As regards the last part of the question, the hon. Member is no doubt aware of my statutory responsibility under Section 1 of the Poor Law Act, 1930, and of the provisions of the Relief Regulation Order made under that Act.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman know why the London Labour party is suddenly waking up to this matter? Is it the case that the approaching London County Council elections have something to do with it?

Mr. SMITHERS: Is there the slightest reason to believe that the London County Council are not doing their duty properly in administering the Poor Law in London?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have had to point out that the Chairman of the public assistance committee has made a statement which is not in conformity with the policy of the Government.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I point out that that is not an answer to ins question?

TRUSTEE SECURITIES.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will seek legislative power by suitable amendment of the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, to refuse admission of securities to the Treasury trustee list of securities?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave on this subject to the
hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) on 11th November, and to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) on 2nd December.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a grave anomaly exists and does he not think that some action ought to be taken?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have already said that I do not think any action is called for.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the admission of securities to the Treasury trustee list implies a tacit recommendation to trustees to purchase those securities?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed this new anti-Imperialist policy?

LAND VALUES (TAXATION).

Mr. HACKING: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to include taxation of land values in his next Budget?

Sir F. HALL: 76.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to include taxation of land values in his next Budget'?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I cannot anticipate the Budget statement.

Mr. HACKING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has anticipated the Budget statement after, as he said, having had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Major GRAHAM POLE: Before an answer is given, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the speech referred to was made in my constituency and that those who heard it, with whom I have been in communication, say that the hon. Member for Burslem said no such thing, and that he was incorrectly reported?

Sir F. HALL: May I press for a reply to the speech that was made at Swadlincote? [Interruption.] On a point of Order. Seeing that a statement has been
made which has indicated a private communication with the right hon. Gentleman, are we not entitled to be told in this House whether it is true or not?

Major POLE: He did not say it.

Mr. SPEAKER: An answer has been given.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. SNOWDEN: If the hon. Member wants an answer to that question, it is that I know nothing at all about it.

GOLD RESERVES.

Mr. MORLEY: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will inform the House what action he is taking towards promoting action to mobilise the gold reserves at present lying in the banks of the United States of America, the Argentine Republic and France.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Obviously I do not possess any powers to deal with the gold reserves which belong to other countries. Action in regard to the gold reserves of any particular country must necessarily rest with the authorites responsible in that country.

MUSIC AND DRAMA (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 75.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the proposed grant to assist the production of grand opera, he also proposes to consider a grant for the production of Shakespearean and other classical British plays?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 2nd December to the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto).

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why he makes a distinction between these two objects

Mr. SNOWDEN: A reply to that question was given in the answer to which I have referred the hon. Member.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think a home-grown Shakespeare is better than a foreign import?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That may apply to some Shakespeares, but certainly not to all Shakespeares.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: 79.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the work which the National Eisteddfod of Wales has done, and is doing, for the musical education of the principality and for providing Wales with high-class music, he will favourably consider the question of making an annual grant to the National Eisteddfod on similar lines to the grant which he has promised to make for the encouragement of grand opera in England?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am afraid that the hon. Member's suggestion is one that I could not entertain.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Eisteddfod is a great Welsh national institution for the cultivation of music and is mainly supported by the workers of Wales, mining workers, and does he not think that it is more entitled to recognition than grand opera, which is largely of foreign origin?

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ACCOMMODATION, ACTON).

Sir B. FALLE: 80.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Establishments Department of the Treasury has recently examined the staff and accommodation in the offices at Bromyard Avenue, Acton, for the purpose of reducing staff and arranging for closer settlement so as to provide space for Government staffs now housed in outlying buildings in the London area?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The number of staff employed by the Ministries of Health and Pensions is continually under review both by the Departments concerned and by the Treasury. The question of allocation of accommodation is for my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, who also has that question constantly under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LAND DRAINAGE (CATCHMENT BOARDS).

Mr. LEES: 82.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give particulars, including names and addresses, and qualifications, of all persons appointed to the new catchment boards, specifying his own nominations; and if he will say what arrangements, if any, have been made to secure that the workers, whose interests are concerned, are represented on each of these boards?

Dr. ADDISON: The total number of members of catchment boards will probably exceed a thousand, and my hon. Friend will perhaps agree that it is not necessary to give in the OFTICIAL REPORT a large mass of information which is not of general interest, but I shall be happy to arrange to furnish to him, or to any other hon. Member, a complete list of the members of any catchment board in which he may be specially interested. In all these appointments I keep in mind the desirability of securing the representation of workers.

Mr. LEES: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply the full information asked for in the question which I have put to him?

Dr. ADDISON: I do not think my hon. Friend can have caught my reply.

Mr. LEES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how many representatives of the working class there are on these boards?

Dr. ADDISON: I will take special care to see that that is done.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS, GLAMORGAN.

Mr. JENKINS: 83.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what land has been acquired in Glamorgan for smallholdings and allotments under the Act of 1926; what number of people are employed on each holding and the price paid for such holdings; and will he consider giving an increased grant for necessitous areas?

Dr. ADDISON: I am informed that under the Act of 1926 the Glamorgan County Council have purchased 450 acres of land at a cost of£16,825, and have taken on lease 572 acres at an annual rental of£437. I am unable to state the number of persons employed, but the
total number of tenants is 28. I have no power to increase the contribution towards losses on smallholdings provided by councils beyond the maximum of 75 per cent. authorised by the Act.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Leader of the House what business will be taken next week?

The PRIME, MINISTER: On Monday, we shall take the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill.
Tuesday: The following Supplementary Estimates: (1) Ministry of Labour; (2) Public Buildings Overseas; followed by the necessary Ways and Means Resolutions in Committee, and the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill.
Wednesday: Private Members' Motions.
Thursday: Committee stage of the Education (School Attendance) Bill; the Report stage of the Supplementary Eetimates and of the Ways and Means Resolutions taken on the 9th December; and the 'Unemployment Insurance Bill, Third Reading.
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Can the Prime Minister say when the Bill foreshadowed in the King's Speech, dealing with electoral reform, will be introduced?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope it will be introduced before we adjourn for the Recess.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Will the Prime Minister give facilities at an early date for a discussion of the Motion on the Paper, standing in the names of certain hon. Friends of mine and myself, with regard to the strong feeling in

Canada as to the recent statement made by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the House will agree with me that, until we have disposed of the really important and urgent business, we cannot find time for such a discussion.

Mr. BALDWIN: How far does the right hon. Gentleman propose to go tonight with the business, in the event of his Motion being carried?

The PRIME MINISTER: In order to achieve our object of adjourning on the 19th, if we possibly can, it will be necessary to dispose to-night of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and the next two Orders on the Paper, namely, the Third Reading of the Cunard (Insurance) Agreement Bill, which I hope will be non-contentious and which I believe is purely formal; and the Report stage of the Unemployment Insurance (Money) Resolution, which was fully debated in Committee on Monday.

Mr. SMITH ERS: Can the Prime Minister say when he proposes to call the House together after Christmas?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. Everything will depend upon the business, but I think that if I were questioned at the beginning of the week I should be in a
position to say when. We are at the moment discussing the work that has to be done between Christmas and Easter.
Ordered,
That other Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 149.

Division No. 51.]
AYES.
[3.49 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Barnes, Alfred John
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cann[...]ck)
Barr, James
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Batey, Joseph
Bowen, J. W.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Bellamy, Albert
Brockway, A. Fenner


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Bromfield, William


Arnott, John
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Brooke, W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Benson, G.
Brothers, M.


Ayles, Walter
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lang, Gordon
Romeril, H, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Lathan, G.
Rowson, Guy


Buchanan, G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Burgess, F. G.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lawson, John James
Sanders, W. S.


Charleton H. C.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sandham, E.


Chater, Daniel
Leach, W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Church, Major A. G.
Lees, J.
Scott. James


Clarke, J. S.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scurr, John


Cluse, W. S.
Lloyd, C. Ellie
Sexton, James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Logan, David Gilbert
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Compton, Joseph
Longbottom, A. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cove, William G.
Longden, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Daggar, George
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Dallas, George
Lowth, Thomas
Shield, George William


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shillaker, J. F.


Day, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shinwell, E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetiaw)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dukes, C.
McElwee, A.
Simmons, C. J.


Duncan, Charles
McEntee, V. L.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Ede, James Chuter
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Edge, Sir William
MeiKinlay, A.
Sinkinson, George


Edmunds, J. E.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Elmley, Viscount
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Foot, Isaac
MacNeill-Welr, L.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith. H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Freeman, Peter
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mansfield, W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Marcus, M.
Snell, Harry


Gibbins, Joseph
Markham, S. F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Marley, J.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gill, T. H.
Marshall, Fred
Sorensen, R.


Glassey, A. E.
Mathers, George
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gossling, A. G.
Matters, L. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Gould, F.
Maxton, James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Middleton, G.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Millar, J. D.
Strauss, G. R.


Grenfefl, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major J.
Sutton, J. E.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro' W.)
Montague, Frederick
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morley, Ralph
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Groves, Thomas E.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Tinker, John Joseph


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tout, W. J.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mort, D. L.
Townend, A. E.


Hardie, George D.
Moses, J. J. H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Harris, Percy A.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Vaughan, D. J.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Viant, S. P.


Haycock, A. W.
Muff, G.
Walker, J.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wallace, H. W.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Naylor, T. E.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Herrlotts, J.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Watkins, F. C.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oldfleld, J. R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hoffman, P. C.
Oliver, George. Harold (Ilkeston)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hopkin, Daniel
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
West, F. R.


Horrabin, J. F.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Westwood, Joseph


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Palin, John Henry
White, H. G.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Paling, Wilfrid
Whiteley, Willfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Johnston, Thomas
Perry, S. F.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Picton-TurbervIll, Edith
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pole, Major D. G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pybus, Percy John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Kelly, W. T.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wise, E. F.


Kennedy, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Richards, R.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Kinley, J.
Richardson, R (Houghton-le-Spring)



Kirkwood, D.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Knight, Holford
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes


Lambert, Rt. lion. George (S. Molton)
Ritson, J.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast. W.)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon


Albery, Irving James
Atholl, Duchess of
Berry, Sir George


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Betterton, Sir Henry B.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l.,W.)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman




Boothby, R. J. G.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Penny, Sir George


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peto. Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Boyce, H. L.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Purbrick, R.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsbotham, H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newby)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hammersley, S. S.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hanbury, C.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Butler, R. A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hartington, Marquess of
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Salmon, Major I.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hencage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Savery, S. S.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Simms, Major-General J.


Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edsbaston)
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Christie. J. A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Colville, Major D. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Courtauid, Major J. S.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cranborne, Viscount
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Locker Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Makins, Brigadler-General E.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wardlaw-Milne. J. S.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Marjoribanks, Edward
Warrender, Sir Victor


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s-M.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ferguson, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Withers, Sir John James


Fielden, E. B.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Womersley, W. J.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Gault, Lieut.-Cot. Andrew Hamilton
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert



Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
O'Neill. Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir Frederick Thomson.


Glyn, major R. G. C.
Peake, Capt. Osbert

BILLS PRESENTED.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (NO. 2) BILL,

"to prohibit the hunting of deer," presented by Mr. Lovat-Fraser; supported by Mr. Freeman, Sir Robert Gower, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Evans, Mr. Foot, Mr. Cocks, and Sir Ernest. Bennett; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

CUMBERLAND MARKET (ST. PANCRAS) BILL,

"to repeal the Act of the eleventh year of His late Majesty King George IV., chapter fourteen (which provided for the establishment of a market in the parish of St. Pancras), to provide for the appropriation as open ground of other land in substitution for any part of the site of that market on which it is proposed to erect buildings, and for purposes connected with the purposes aforesaid," presented by Dr. Addison; supported by Mr. Attlee and Mr. Lansbury; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Continuance of Acts in Schedule.)

Sir PHILIP CUNUFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) The Act mentioned in Part III of the Schedule to this Act shall, to the extent specified in column three of that Schedule, be continued until the fifteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six.
The object of this Amendment is to secure for a further period the continuance of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920. The time for which that Act should be continued is a matter of secondary consideration. The Amendment puts forward the term of five years. I should be perfectly prepared to compromise on any reasonable term of continuance, hut what i seek to establish by this Amendment is the principle that the Act should not be brought, to an arbitrary end at the beginning of next month. if the Act be not extended, it will be brought to an end on the shortest possible notice, for the Government have delayed to within a month or two of its normal expiration the announcement of their decision, They cannot say that their decision is the result of the recommendation of any exhaustive inquiry, such as ought to precede a decision of such grave moment as that which they are inviting the House to take to-day. One inquiry there has been, the inquiry by the Dyestuffs Industry Development Committee, to which the President of the Board of Trade has referred, the report of which is published as a Command Paper, and upon the findings of which, as I understand, he largely bases his decision that the Act should not be continued. Let me at once, however, remind hon. Members of what were the conclusions of that committee, in so far as it made any recommendations. Paragraph 112 of the report reads thus:
The question now arises whether it would be possible for the industry to carry on that development and maintain its present position without the protection
afforded by the Act. There are two possible opinions on this. The colour users say the Act was for 10 years and no longer. The colour makers say that their increased efficiency during the last few years warrants an extension of the Act which would enable them to complete their work. Further, the importance of the dye industry from the point of view of national security must not be overlooked, but from the point of view of obtaining this object the burden should not be laid on the colour users.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] I agree, and I am going to show that, in the claim I make to-day, no possible burden can be laid on a single colour user in this country. This is their conclusion:
Consequently, it is to the interest of all parties concerned, that is The Government, the users and the dyestuff manufacturers to continue to consider the problem in the same spirit of co-operation that has marked the period of the operation of the Dyestuffs Act, and together to agree, IF possible, first whether any further assistance to the industry is necessary, and, if So, as to the form which such assistance should take.
4.0 p.m.
Whatever else may be said for those conclusions, they certainly afford no warrant whatever to the President of the Board of Trade, without further inquiry, with out further consideration, to determine this Act at the beginning of next year. I propose to show to the Committee what, I think, any unprejudiced critic will agree is a tremendously strong case for some continuation of this Act, but, before I do that, I want to make plain what is the measure of the control of imports for which we ask to-day. We merely ask that foreign dyes shall be prohibited from coming; into this country where the British maker is able to supply a British dye as good in quality as the foreign dye, and to supply it at the same price at which the foreign maker sells his dye to the user in his own country. That is the only claim which the dye industry is asking upon the House, and that is why I say that, in the claim I make, no possible prejudice can come to any single user in this country.
It is quite true that we seek protection against dumping, which means trying to kill the trade here by selling dyes at prices at which those dyes are not available to the textile users in the country from which the dye has come. AG the right hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said, that is a kind of monster which Free Trade cannot be expected to carry, and I do hope that the President of the Board of Trade is not coming to the House to-day to deal with a question which raises grave national issues on the basis of Free Trade or Protection. It is a question which transcends all that. No user can possibly complain if all that he is asked to do is to buy British dye of equal quality at the same price at which that dye is available to the user in Germany or Switzerland. That is the sole claim we are making.
Let me now make the case for the continuance of this Act. The industry is not an industry of foreign origin which we are seeking, contrary to natural ability, to import into this country. It is an industry which, in its origin, was British; British pioneers established it.

Mr. HARDIE: It was established in Germany.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hare a great deal to say, and I do not want to delay the Committee unduly. I am perfectly fair; I am coming to Germany. As regards the origin of this industry, the first brain was that of Perk-in, who had associated with him a man of German origin, perhaps a German himself—Hofmann. The two worked together, but the great pioneer work was done in this country. It is quite true that in the decades before the War, this industry passed into German hands, because they were wiser than we were in those clays, because, when we were paying no attention to the industry, a wise German Government was subsidising its chemists and its universities, was bribing people like Hofmann to return to Germany and establish that close connection of science with industry which has made the great chemical industry in Germany. It was because they were wiser and more far-sighted than we were, that we lost that which was originally ours, which we had to get back by blood and tears in the War, and which the party opposite are trying to throw away once again.
What was the result? This industry had almost died out in this country before the War. Then came the War, and the experience in the War. I challenge anyone to deny that the loss of the dye-making industry to this country at the outbreak of the Great War was about the greatest handicap with which we had to contend. The whole textile industry was hamstrung. An hon. Member, in an eloquent speech last night, talked of the amount of khaki used in the War, and how the British soldier carried four times as mach woollen on his back as the average civilian does to-day. Is it realised that in this country, at the beginning of the War, we could not produce the dye for the khaki cloth and we had to send across the seas men with orders to scour neutral countries to get dye to dye the khaki uniform for our troops? That was the result. But it did not end there. It was not only the textile trade. The dye, industry, vital in peace to the textile trade, was equally vital to the munition industry in war. It was the key almost to explosives. Whether it was for textiles or for explosives, it was vital to restore that industry, and the industry was able to 1. built up with great difficulty by a hardworking band of men whose success owed a great deal to the inspiring genius of Lord Moulton.
In the light of War time experience, I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the considered view to-day of the Service Departments as to the continuance of this Act? We are entitled to know that. Presumably the President of the Board of Trade has consulted the Services before taking this decision, and the House is entitled to know before it takes a decision to-night what is the view of the great Service Departments in this matter. We managed to build up something of an industry in the War. After the War the whole country was unanimous in supporting the recommendations of the Balfour of Burleigh Committee that a dye industry should be maintained in this country at any expense and at all hazards. The Government gave a pledge that
In order to safeguard this particular industry against the great efforts which the great German dye-making firms are certain to make after the War to destroy all that was accomplished through the War, and to
make this industry again subservient to Germany, importations of all foreign dyestuffs shall be controlled by a system of licences for a period of not less than 10 years after the War.
That recommendation was carried out at first by a system of administrative prohibition. Then there came the Sankey judgment, which declared that to be illegal, and between the date of the Sankey judgment and the passing of the 1920 Act, there were enormous importations of foreign dyestuffs which, for the first few years of the 1920 Act, largely militated against the success of the dye industry in this country. In 1920 the Act was passed by common consent. [Interruption]. I think I had a good deal to do with it at the time. I was serving under my right hon. Friend then, and I think I am entitled to say that we had a very large measure of common consent. What will not be denied is the amazing manner in which that Act has justified itself; indeed, it is the very success of the Act which is the only possible ground which the President of the Board of Trade can advance to-day why we should not continue it. It has worked with increasing smoothness and rapidity.
There were many difficulties at first, but they were all overcome by the good will and accommodation of the licensing committee, to which the country owes a real debt and on which there were five users, three makers, and three independent members, and I should like especially to pay a tribute to the hon. Member of this House who through all these years has presided over the committee. I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade another question. There are three independent members of that licensing committee. They have had 10 years' experience of working this Act. Has he consulted them on the way it has worked and as to the decision which he seeks to take to-day? It is almost inconceivable that he should not have done so. If he has done so, I hope he will give us the views that they have expressed, and, if he has not done so, I hope he will stay his hand.
Let me come to the progress that has been made under the Act. We have to overtake a lapse of 15 years in an industry which is not static but which is moving forward every day and every
hour. It is a very difficult task. Before the War only 20 per cent. of the dyes which we consumed worn made in this country. To-day, the dye industry is producing over 90 per cent. of the dyes that our industries consume. Not only that. Before the War all the intermediates for such dyes as we made came from abroad. To-day, practically every intermediate used in dye-making is efficiently made in this country. The production since 1913 has gone up six-fold. We are producing 55.000,000 lbs. of dyes to-day as against 9,000.000 lbs. before the War. The imports have been reduced in exactly the like proportion. The export trade, to which we aye always asked to direct our attention, has gone up from 4,000,000 lbs. in 1922 to over 15,000,000 lbs. last year. So much for the progress that has been made in the volume of production.
In an industry like this, however, it is not volume alone that counts. Quality is as important. The story of the progress in quality and the achievements made in quality are just as remarkable as the progress that has been made in volume. The committee say, in effect, that the quality of British dyes is so good that they really need not go into the details of the quality of any particular dye. The general opinion throughout the colour-using industry is that the output of British makers now compares very favourably with that of foreign producers. In view of the fact that the general position so far as quality is concerned is so satisfactory, the committee do not think it necessary to deal with individual products on this point. That is a pretty good tribute from a committee on which the makers are in a minority. The Dyestuff Development Committee draw attention to one particular triumph of British dye-makers to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee. It is the triumph of the British dye-makers in vat colours, the most difficult of all, and, as the result of that, the tremendous impetus which has been given to the artificial silk industry in paragraph 43 they say:
Vat colours are the most complicated to produce, and it is in this class that the recent development of the industry has been most marked. Foreign manufacturers, particularly German makers, have made great efforts to increase the use of vat colours and to secure the market for them. Notwith-
standing this, 74 new British vat colours have been introduced on the market since 1921, and some of these were not previously manufactured anywhere in the world.
The committee go on to show the impetus which has been given to the artificial silk industry, which is one of our few great post-War successes. They say:
It is of supreme importance to observe that owing to the fact that active work was proceeding on the development of a dye-stuffs industry in Great Britain, that industry was able to solve a problem of great urgency in the textile industry, the dyeing of acetate silk, and in this field of the production of dye-stuffs suitable for the ravel textile fibre the British dye-stuffs industry not only pointed the way to the rest of the world, but still provides one of the most complete ranges of these special dye-stuffs. This achievement enabled the British textile manufacturer to exploit the possibilities of the new fibre at the earliest moment and thus gain a predominant position in the market.
That was not doing much injury to the textile trade. But the story does not end there. The creation of this efficient dyestuff industry in this country led to the building up of subsidiary industries. The committee show how the pigment colour industry has been built up entirely as the result of having the dyestuff industry. They show that it is thoroughly efficient and that its produce is every bit as good in quality as any foreign industry, and that it has actually quadrupled its employment since the dye industry received this measure of protection. In the same way, the printing ink industry has also made its advance. If you look at the other end of the scale, this dyestuffs industry, which the Development Committee say is always eager and anxious to improve its plant, is always placing new orders with the engineering trade. The existence and the efficiency of this industry has led to numerous orders being placed with upwards of 100 firms of engineers who have been able, because we have this dyestuff industry here, to build up a highly scientific branch of the chemical engineering industry in our engineering trade to-day. Foreign capital has come in. Instead of importing dyes from Switzerland, the Clayton Aniline Company is manufacturing in this country. I have seen repeated statements made on high authority and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman: If we abandon this Act, is it not a fact that this Clayton Aniline
Company, a Swiss subsidiary which manufactures here, will manufacture in Switzerland and send from there instead of manufacturing here. Does not all this show how remarkable is the progress that has been made in what is perhaps the most difficult industry of all in the short space of 10 years?
It may be asked: If the industry has made progress and is as successful as that, what need is there to continue the Act? The need to continue the Act is the risk that a concentrated dumping attack will be made upon it in order to ruin it in the immediate future. That attack is certain to come. This is the only open market. Other countries protect their dye industry. The capacity to produce dyestuffs in the dye-making countries of the world is far greater than the capacity of the world to absorb them. Without any extension of factories, Germany could perfectly easily manufacture the dyes that we require and dump them here in a month or two. Other countries are not opening their doors. America protects its dyes. And I noticed that at Geneva, when the right hon. Gentleman's representative announced to an applauding audience of foreign countries that we were going to abandon the Dyestuffs Prohibition Act, inquiries were instantly made as to whether there was any chance of Parliament changing the right hon. Gentleman's decision. Our representative asked: "What are you prepared to do in return" That was followed by a statement by the French that they could not possibly think of abolishing the prohibition on scrap, and, more interesting still, the Japanese said that, if we abandoned our prohibition of dyes, they could not abandon theirs.
Is it not plain that it will mean that it is to this country that the concentrated attack will come in order that Germany may once again assume that dominating position in this vital industry which she enjoyed before the War? In the past German dye manufacturers have made overtures to dyemakers in this country, saying: "Why do you bother to make dyes? You do not make much money out of it. We could supply the dyes, and we could very conveniently compensate you for any loss of profit and give you a good deal more besides." That overture has actually been made to makers in this
country, and they have hitherto refused it. But, if you take away any safeguards that they have, what encouragement is there for them to refuse an overture of that kind? That is the case for the maintenance of the Act.
May I now deal with such arguments as I have been able to ascertain are advanced against its continuance, and advanced not by the users as a whole, but only by a very limited body of users? Probably the most representative and the most experienced user is, Sir Henry Sutcliffe Smith, who is not only managing director of Bradford Dyers, but has been for 10 or 11 years president of the Colour Users' Association, the official body most concerned in the matter. He says that it would be little short of a disaster to bring this Act to an end at present. So that it is by no means a unanimous demand that comes from users, and, where the demand does come, it is based entirely on a misconception of what we are seeking. In all the arguments that are advanced, I never see it stated that all we 'are asking is that British dyes shall be bought only where they are equal in quality and in price to the foreign article.
Let me take the arguments that are advanced. The 'first is that the Act was for a period of 10 years, 'and, the 10 years having expired, it ought to lapse. I have explained what the Government's words actually were and what happened 'and the influx of dyes that came in the interregnum between the Sankey judgment and the passing of the Act, but I do not rest myself on that. What does it matter what was said or done 10 years ago? Surely what we as practical people have to consider to-day is what we ought to do in the light of world conditions, of which the Government are always speaking.
The second argument is that of price. I have already dealt with the fact that any argument advanced in regard to price has reference to old difficulties and to old controversies. Of course, there were difficulties at the beginning when we were trying to build up the industry. I know that the committee had to introduce ratios and formulae about price factors? All that is out of date to-day, because the offer which the dye-makers are making to the dye-users is that if
they cannot produce a dye which is just as good and just as cheap, then the foreign dye may come in. What argument can be advanced on the ground of price? Let the Committee observe what has been the history of prices in the dye trade and in the fine chemical trade as well '? As long as Germany had a monopoly the price of dyes was kept up. Dr. Morton told a story—and it can be multiplied over and over again by different examples—that there was one most complicated dye, one of tie Indanthrene series, which took nine years of research in this country to produce. What happened? As long as Germany had a monopoly of the dye it was 9s. 6d. a lb. British research and British manufacture began, and, steadily, the price came down. and to-day that Indanthrene dye is being sold at 3s. Does anybody suppose that if we had not manufactured that dye the Indanthrene dye-makers, out of the goodness of their hearts, would have made a present to Lancashire of the difference between 9s. 6d. and 3s. The same kind of story could be repeated over and over again. If yon abandon this Act—and it is in these most difficult dyes that the greatest research is needed—it cannot be supposed that the price will not go up and that all the temporary advantages will remain.
The next argument is the fear that if we continue the Act we shall not get the latest new dyes. That is a piece of propaganda from foreign dye-makers which I really did not think would take in even the simplest person in this country. There is no ground for the suggestion. I have asked over and over again: Where is there an example of a foreign dye-maker refusing to send a dye? I have never had one. We imported last year 5,000,000 lbs. weight of foreign dyes, and they included over a thousand different grades and types. If we can get a thousand different types in that comparatively small tonnage, what evidence is there that foreign dye-makers are going to refrain from sending their dyes? Everybody is aware of the evidence of Dr. Morton, one of the most skilled dyers in this country. He says that in one of his processes he uses, I think, 150 different dyes which he requires to import, every one of which he is able to get in small quantities without the slightest difficulty. He says that the
travellers of foreign dye-makers come week after week and almost day after day offering the latest novelties for consumption in this country. I do not believe that for one moment there is anything in this suggestion.
There is the allegation that we are being hit by the Indanthrene propaganda of the Germans. I will try in a sentence or two to make this technical point clear. The Germans have a series of dyes which they call Indanthrene. These dyes have no guarantee of quality or of fastness, but the Germans have been clever enough to do very extensive propaganda to say that these are very good dyes, and as a result certain persons ask for goods with the Indanthrene mark. The Germans say that unless you dye your goods with German dyes throughout you shall not put the Indanthrene mark upon any textile goods. If that is true, what is the answer'? It is not in the British textile interests to encourage the Indanthrene mark. On the contrary—I had some experience at the Board of Trade with regard to this question—I know that the textile people in this country are anxious that their own individual marks, which have a long history behind them and are tokens of quality all over the world, should be the mark which should be carried into foreign markets. The way to meet the Indanthrene propaganda of German dye-makers and dyers is not to sit down and say we consent to the Indanthrene mark being put upon our stuff; it is for the textile makers and the dye-makers, who, I understand, are wililng to co-operate, to get together and have an intensive propaganda of British textile marks to counter the propaganda in favour of German textile marks.
There is one last thing which is alleged. It is a fear that our export trade will suffer because of the price which we have to pay for our dyes. I have already answered that question. The proposition is that we should buy only British dyes when they are the same price as the foreign dyes. If this be so, what difference can it make in the price of the textile article? I would remind Members of the Committee that, if they look into the past and analyse the figures, they will find that, though there have been great reductions in our exports of cotton goods, by far the largest reduction is in grey and bleached and unbleached
cloth where no dye at all is used, and that the smallest proportion of reduction has come in printed and dyed goods where British dyes have been. used. If I am challenged, I can quote the figures. It is worth the while of the textile industry to remember, that in the time after the War, when it had a chance of selling at great prices in all the markets of the world, it was entirely due to the British dye industry which had been built up during the War that the British textile industry was able to take advantage of this trade in foreign markets.
Those are all the arguments, as far as I have been able to gather them from discussion, from the Press and through these reports, which any user can advance against the temporary continuance of this Act. They would be slender reasons for jeopardising any industry, least of all perhaps the most vital key industry in this country. The dye industry is the basic industry in organic chemistry. It is the great training ground for chemists. All through the industry to-day it is becoming more and more important that you should have this application of science to industry. It is a commercial opportunity for the trained chemists in our workshops.
It is not in the interests of the dye industry alone but also enormously in the interests of the textile industry. I have already shown to the Committee how the skill and work of these expert chemists made possible the advance in the artificial silk industry in this country. We are tremendously indebted to these chemists; the whole of the textile industry is indebted to them. Here you have the ideal linking of science and industry—universities and factories. The whole Committee will have read the remarkable manifesto issued by practically all the professors of chemistry in the great universities in this country. hope that the President of the Board of Trade will not put them upon their trial for an agitation against the economic State. Is not an appeal like that the kind of appeal which comes home, at any rate, to moderately impartial people in the House: of Commons 7 Is it not an appeal to which we can give consideration?
It is said, "Abolish the Act now, and if we make a mistake, we can put it back
again." To do that would be to take a terrible risk. Undoubtedly, that would be followed by an intensive attack upon this industry, and, as I said before, it is not a static industry—it is the least static industry in all the world, moving forward with increasing velocity the whole time. What will happen? You will lose all the continuity of research, dishearten your chemists and throw many of them upon the streets just when the process of research is going forward perhaps to some great new fruition, and you will have to start again far down the scale. What do we ask? We only ask for a maintenance of prohibition where the British dyes are equal in quality and equal in price. Remembering our past experience and appreciating the progress which this industry has made, I beg of the Committee to give to this industry some further help, and not to stay so hopeful a venture and thereby imperil our indutrial and national security.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: The reason I venture to address the Committee on this somewhat technical subject is because, for some time past, I have been endeavouring to keep in very close touch with the various aspects of this controversy. If I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) in his conclusion there is very much in the premises embodied in this speech which I would not seek for a moment to traverse. Perhaps it would be as well, in the first place, if we consider how far we agree, so that the discussion to-day could be limited as far as possible, if the Committee so desires, to the somewhat narrow point where there is a very real difference of opinion.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon that the dyeing industry must be regarded as a special case. There are exceptional factors which require the special attention of Parliament. During the War it was the colour users who took the initiative in promoting a revival of the dye industry in this country. They found, the textile trade in particular, that the normal supply of dyes had been cut off by War conditions and that it was impossible for them to carry on their trade at all unless
fresh supplies were opened up within our own shores. It was they who promoted the kind of legislation which is embodied in the Act which we are now considering. At a later stage it was found that the rapid expansion of the dye industry could render very great services in national defence in providing the chemical elements of warfare.
The Government of which I had the honour to be a member in 1916 appointed a Ministerial Committee—it was done by my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) who was then President of the Board of Trade—to go into the whole matter. That Committee unanimously decided that special measures were necessary to promote the establishment of an expanded dye industry in this country and to maintain it after the War. We did not adopt the crude and clumsy methods of a tariff, but the more carefully devised special machinery which has been employed during the last 10 years. In 1920, when the War was over, diverse views were expressed among members of the party with which I am associated, and Mr. Asquith, who was then Leader of the party, concurred that it was necessary to have special legislation for the dye industry. I was abroad at the time on other duties, but if I had been in this country I feel sure that I should have shared Mr. Asquith's views. I do not hold, and never have held, a laissez faire principle in politics. I believe that in many directions the State may exercise an intelligent activity to promote, if necessary, important industrial movements, or in various ways to strengthen our industrial system. I should not seek to restrict the activities of the State by a priori limits in that regard.
The Act was passed, and the facts show that it has really been justified by the results. The right hon. Member for Hendon has given some of those results. Before the War, this country produced 9,000,000 pounds of dyes. It is now producing six times as much—55,000,000 pounds. Four times the number of people are employed in the industry as were employed then. The very elaborate plant that is required in the production of the dyes is now provided from domestic sources. There are over 100 firms which have made themselves capable of supply-
ing the plant that is needed. Over 90 per cent. by weight of the domestic consumption of dyes is now provided from domestic sources. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, it is established that the quality of the British dyes is as good as that of the Continental dyes, and occasionally better, and that the price of the dyes now produced in this country is no longer excessive, although some years ago it was excessive. Further, the dye industry has enriched this country by a number of new discoveries and, in particular, has found the processes which enable the new material of artificial silk to be efficiently dyed. It has also developed 'an export trade. Our exports of dyes are now nearly equal to the imports.
All this has been the result of close study and arduous work, and I think the whole House, whatever their view upon this particular Motion may be, should express their gratitude to the leaders of the industry, and to their chemists and engineers, for the very remarkable achievements which they have been able to carry through. By 15 years of strenuous work they have increased the opportunities of employment and have added to the wealth of the nation. All sections of the House should pay a tribute to all those who have so successfully carried through these great achievements.
Furthermore, the new dye industry has given a wide scope for practical training in research arid in chemical improvements. There was need for special action in this country because there was a backwardness in Great Britain for many years in regard to scientific research, applied science and technical education which enabled our Continental trade competitors to get a great advance. It is not cheap labour, as some of my hon. Friends occasionally suggest, which has been the means of securing for modern Germany her economic greatness, but, far more, it is intensive intellectual application to the problems of industry. In ancient times it was the plough, the hand loom and the spinning wheel which were the foundations of industry; in the 19th century it was the steam engine, but now the foundation lies far more with the chemist and the electrical engineer than with any others. So far I think we are all agreed, and the debate to-day need not range
over those points which are not disputed in any quarter.
Does it follow from all that I have said that it is necessary to continue the operation of this particular Act of Parliament I That is the point to which the House must give its consideration, and on which it will to-night give its decision. As hon. Members are aware, there has been in existence for a number of years the Dyestuffs Industry Development Committee. That is a statutory body set up under the Act of 1920. It represents all the parties to this controversy, the dyemakers, the dye users, and also independent elements. That committee has issued a report for the guidance of the Government and of this House. It is true that the report does not make any specific recommendation on the particular point now before us. The committee evidently disagreed, and ended with a concluding paragraph which was in itself inconclusive. They really express a benevolent desire that there should be a general agreement for making all these trades as happy as they can be made. However, the committee have presented the facts, and they have presented them in a form which I think will be accepted in all quarters. At any rate, I have not seen any criticism of the presentation of the facts. They are not ex parte. I shall base what I have to say very largely upon the report of the committee and shall read several paragraphs from the report. They say:
At the outset the Committee have no hesitation in saying that the main object of the Act has been achieved, and that a substantial dye-making industry has been built up and maintained by reason of the Act in this country; and that the achievement of that object has admittedly laid a serious burden upon the colour-using industries, in the high prices which have been charged to them for dyewares during the early years of the operation of the Act, and by some interference with their access to the world's markets for their wares. It is gratifying to record, however, that the economic disadvantage has been gradually diminished, but it is obvious that any form of restriction is a hindrance to the consuming trades.
That is a very important pronouncement of opinion, but it is not so important as this paragraph:
Arising out of these comments attention should be drawn to the directions in which the British manufacture has not been developed, and it is not altogether reassuring that the tendency has been in the main to
concentrate on those materials for which there is a comparatively large demand, whilst in those cases where the consumption is relatively small, the policy appears to have been to leave these to the foreign maker.
Very naturally, this new industry has concentrated on bulk supplies for which there is a large demand, while specialities, for which there is a small demand, have been left to the foreign makers. The paragraph proceeds:
…but special stress must be laid on the fact that these industries depend to a great extent upon the novelty of the effects procurable, and in order to achieve these ends specialities are indispensable. The market for these goods is not confined to this country, but is in the widest sense the world's market—
I would call special attention to the next sentence—
and it is imperative—
no stronger word could be used—
that the producers of these goods in this country should he fully provided with the greatest possible variety of the necessary materials for their production. Anything short of this must be considered a most serious handicap. One direction in which the British dye-making industry has failed to justify the hopes of users, is that development of an important group of dyestuffs has been prejudiced by British makers entering into arrangements with foreign producers, whereby the manufacture of this range has not been attempted commercially, and the user has been left entirely to draw his supplies from foreign sources. The group referred to is an important series of mordant colours.
That is the essence of the matter as it now presents itself to the House, and that is the essence of the case which I desire to put to the Committee. The imports which we have now, according to the report, consist to the extent of upwards of 99 per cent. of dyes that are not made in this country. Of our imports practically the whole are dyes which are not produced in this country at all and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, they are a very great variety. There are no fewer than 1,600 brands of them. Let me turn again to this invaluable report. I make no apologies for reading further passages because they are authoritative and will be accepted in all quarters of the House. In regard to the purchase of these necessary imports from foreign countries the Committee say:
It cannot be overlooked, however, that under the method of purchasing colour in this country, a proper balance is not
obtained, inasmuch as the British makers are supplying the users with types of colours used in bulk quantities, whereas the foreign types, the demand for which is increasing, have to be purchased at present in smaller lots from the Continent.
"Have to be purchased." These imports have been increasing in recent. years. In spite of the remarkable growth of the industry, the special commodities that have been imported from abroad have been increasing. In 1925 and 1928 the imports varied in amount from 4,000,000 pounds to 4,500,000 pounds each year, but last year they amounted in weight to 5,600,000 pounds. The intermediates, which are of less importance, show a very great growth in the importations of last year.
One cannot consider the question as if it were the one single question of importing foreign dyes. We have this enormous variety of different dyes imported from abroad which are needed by the different manufacturers for different purposes. It is essential that there should be no handicap, difficulty or restriction put upon the manufacturers in obtaining those dyes which cannot be produced here. The whole question is whether the continuation of the Act will involve such restrictions and disadvantages. The licensing is left to the licensing committee, and the gravamen of the colour-users' case is that the operation of the Act by the licensing committee undoubtedly puts very great difficulties in the way of the consumers of dyes. The report says:
The dyer, the printer and the finisher have to meet exactly their customers demands with something* which cannot be definitely measured, inasmuch as by the use of one material as compared with another, the ultimate result which, to the men not in the trade, does not seem of much account, yet may mean in the actual sale of the finished goods the difference between losing and obtaining the order.
That is of absolute importance.
The production of the desired effects frequently involves numerous processes, which renders it imperative for the user to make a most careful selection of suitable dye-stuffs, and years of experience are necessary to determine the facts.
5.0 p.m.
The colour-users' case is that this work cannot be delegated to any licensing committee in London. It is the old case of the interference of bureaucracy in the conduct of business. Some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway are continually emphasising how important it is that there should be no interference under the
law with the trader and producer, and that he should be left to conduct his own business in his own way. Here is a case where he is left, I will not say at the mercy of, but he is made subject to a committee which may or may not administer the matter efficiently. The complaint of the dye-users is that even where consent is given to the importation of the commodities which they think to be necessary, very frequently prolonged delay is involved, which they say is destructive of business. It is all very well for large manufacturers, like Dr. Morton, to say that there is no difficulty. The case is really one which affects the small firms of manufacturers. It is they who are chiefly concerned. I will not use my own words, because I have no technical knowledge of this subject, but I will quote from those who are engaged in the trade and who know its ramifications. I will make two or three quotations from letters which I have received. The first is from a manufacturer who is Chairman of the Federation of Yarn Dyers covering Lancashire, Yorkshire and Cheshire, Mr. Lawson. He says:
The most serious consideration is how the matter affects the smaller firms, particularly the smaller firms who are unable to employ an expert staff to superintend the demand for licences and who, confronted with the difficulty and uncertainty of obtaining a regular licence for any new product offered to them, content themselves with the product that is available without these handicaps although they realise it to be a second best. Anyone who has had an opportunity of seeing what goods are produced by many of our Continental competitors must realise what untold harm this frame of mind has done to the textile trade of this country.
The second is from Mr. Swallow, a director of an important firm in Manchester. He says, in a published letter:
It can definitely be said that dye-makers have shown no real disposition to attempt the manufacture of many colours essential to our business. It may convey more to the reader when I say that, although upwards of 80 per cent. of the requirements of the trade in which I am interested are purchased from British sources, we are compelled to import a greater number of products than we buy in this country. It will be realised, therefore, that the imported colours are specialities used in relatively small quantities.
I have received this morning a letter from the gentleman who is chairman of the
joint committee of the Lancashire cotton trade, Mr. J. S. Grey, of Burnley. He writes to me in. a personal capacity, and he says:
It is essential for the cotton trade that the Act should be allowed to lapse. The trade has borne with great patience this Act for 10 years. That is ample time for the industry to be established. The worst feature of all is the delay and inconvenience and handicap of the licensing system. There are so many of the highest class and newest dyes essential to calico printing which Lancashire must have and ought to have as readily as have foreign competitors, which the licensing system interferes with. They are not yet and cannot be produced here, and if Lancashire cotton of the finest type is to keep in the forefront, there should be no handicap imposed of this nature.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is he a dye-user

Sir H. SAMUEL: Yes, a large manufacturer. He is expressing his opinion not from the point of view of his own actual business, but, being chairman of the whole of the Lancashire cotton trade, he writes to me—I know him very well—expressing his own view that, in the interest of the trade not only of his awn business, but of the whole of the Lancashire trade, the Act should lapse.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: He is a strong Free Trader.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I hope so—yes. He is a most sensible man. There is another organisation which represents the calico printers, the Calico Printers' Association, which holds strongly that this Act should be allowed to lapse, particularly for the reasons I have mentioned. They say:
Owing to the nature of the processes, it is frequently only after long experience that suitable products can be found, and it is one of the fundamental objections to any control of the imports that the decision regarding the materials to be used is placed in the hands of people other than those with the job to perform.
There is an even larger and more important body than any I have mentioned yet, the Colour Users' Association. This is a combination of all the colour-users of various trades. It was originally the Colour Users' Committee, and was established in 1915 when the question was first raised. In 1919, it was formed into a definite association, and is officially recognised. It has not been created for the purposes of this controversy; it has been officially recognised for many years, and
has four representatives on the licensing committee. The members have cooperated loyally and actively in the working of the Act ever since it was first in existence. The Chairman, Sir Henry Sutcliffe Smith, spoke at a meeting of the association on 15th July. He is of opinion personally that the Act might be continued partially, that some parts of the Act might be continued, but he is in favour of it only in so far as it applies to existing dyes manufactured here. As chairman, he expresses the views of the association. He says:
Your council desires that I as chairman should publicly voice their views, and the fact. that they are opposed to any further extension of the Act and that they are equally opposed to any equivalent legislation which would hamper the colour-using trades in the efficient and economical pursuit of their industries.
In this official announcement, which was issued to the Press, he goes on to give the reasons why the Colour Users' Association oppose the continuance of the Act. These are:

"1. The Dyestuffs Act has served its purpose in assisting to establish the dye-making industry in this country.
2. The colour users of Great Britain have loyally honoured their pledge to assist in the establishment and development of the dye-making industry.
3. The users suggest that the burden of the establishment of the industry has not been equitably shared, too large a share having fallen on them.
4. Users are still dependent upon foreign supplies for certain of their needs, and it would be a serious handicap if the flow of novelties and specialised dye-wares from abroad were obstructed in any way.
5. The users suggested that because of the importance and strength of the leading British dye-stuffs makers and additional sources of supplies from abroad now available the serious position of 1914 is not likely to be repeated.
6. The Government pledge to assist the establishment of the industry because of national security cannot be overlooked, but the cost should not fall solely upon the colour-using industries."

That is the whole of the statement, and I think hon. Members will agree that it is a very powerful one.

Mr. WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the next paragraph? It is very interesting.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The next paragraph is his own personal view. It says:
I have endeavoured to give you a fair representation of the official policy of the Colour Users' Association as formulated by the council; nevertheless, my personal opinion, as I expressed it at our last annual meeting, is that it would be economic folly to allow this great industry so necessary for our trade and security and now well on the way to be thoroughly established, to decline.'
There is a conflict of views, the chairman being at loggerheads with his council, but it is perfectly legitimate for me to say that the Colour Users' Association, which is the body recognised as representing the colour-users, has declared in uncompromising language that it desires the Act to cease. I would add, finally, that the Chambers of Commerce in the part of Lancashire I represent, Blackburn and Preston, have passed this resolution:
That this chamber is of opinion that the operation of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act is prejudicial to the interests of the textile industries and is a cause of unemployment in those industries. The Chamber therefore asks the Government to allow the Act to lapse when the period of its operation expires.
The statement that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon that the dye-makers would be willing to allow dyes of equivalent quality and price to British dyes to he imported is not quite correct. That is not the offer of the dye manufacturers. Their offer is qualified by saying that in their view the licensing committee ought to be continued, and if the licensing committee are satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case foreign prices may be detrimental to the sound development of the industry in this country licenses to imports shall be refused.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should not have made the statement I did without the full authority of the whole of the dye-makers. Since the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has quoted was published, the dye-makers have stated that all that they ask is that British dyes shall be protected where they are equal in quality and price—with the sole exception of dumping.

Mr. R. S. YOUNG: If they are equal in quality and price, why should they want protection at all?

HON. MEMBERS: Dumping!

Sir H. SAMUEL: The question, of course, is what exactly is dumping. If the right hon. Gentleman says that this paragraph is withdrawn-I was quoting from the memorandum sent out by the Association of British Chemical Manufacturers dealing with the whole of the case-I can only say that, as far as I know, no part of it has been publicly withdrawn, and I imagine this paragraph that I quoted is their way of expressing the anti-dumping proposition. The question is whether they wish to continue the licensing and are prepared to stop goods coming in if, in the opinion of the licensing committee, the prices at which these goods come in are injurious to what they call the sound development of the industry. That may be a matter of opinion, so it is not correct to say that in all cases they are willing to allow foreign competition if the price is lower than the British price.
The main point is that in regard to all these specialities there is not such a thing as a market quotation. These are not standardised articles. There is such an immense variety not only in grades of colour but also in quality and strength, that the price has to be negotiated for each separate parcel, and there is no general market price which can be quoted and compared with the general British market price. They find that, under the present law, when British textile manufacturers wish to obtain some special article they ask for licences to import it, but the foreign producer will not quote a price, because he knows that the only purpose of quoting a price is to enable the British manufacturer to fix the same or a lower price. That is found to be frequently the case. The foreign producer will not quote merely in order to suit the convenience of the licensing committee and to give a standard price which British manufacturers can adopt. They know also that their samples which are sent over are sometimes sent to British manufacturers in order to see whether they can make a similar article. In the meantime, there is great delay, and the British importer being prevented from obtaining the special articles which he needs, may lose the order for which that special article is required.

Mr. RAMSBOTH AM: Will the right hon. Gentleman say from what he is quoting 7

Sir H. SAMUEL: They are statements made to me by dye-users. That is the reason why the colour-users are opposing a renewal of the Act. The dye-users have a reason to oppose; they are only anxious to maintain the dye industry as a valuable industry to themselves and to the country. if the dye-users oppose, they have some reason for doing so. They say that it is a handicap in obtaining the necessities for one of the most valuable branches of the cotton trade. I appeal to the Committee to give a not unsympathetic hearing to the plea of the colour-users as well as the dye-makers, and particularly of the cotton industry. The cotton industry is passing through a period of extreme depression. I doubt whether any other great industry in this or any other country has suffered in so short a time so great a collapse as the cotton trade. Its production is now only half what it was a few years ago, not only in the bleached goods but in the dyed and printed goods. The part of the cotton trade which one may have good hopes of saving and expanding is the better end of the trade, the finer qualities, the specialities. It is not the grey goods of cotton cloth which are most likely to prosper in the near future; it is the more highly elaborate materials, the finer qualities, the novelties, which may secure a recovery of our trade to some extent.
At this moment there are 233,000 unemployed workers in the cotton trade. We frequently reproach our manufacturers with not showing sufficient enterprise and push in adapting their wares to the market. That is a criticism which is continually made, and no doubt has some force, but here, where the manufacturers ask for the fullest liberty to provide the colours which are necessary to produce goods of the greatest variety, the highest quality and the latest novelty, restrictions and difficulties are put in their way, and the cotton trade does feel that it has a right of appeal to this House that if it cannot take any positive measures for rescuing the trade, at all events it should not put hindrances in the way. They say, if you cannot help us, at all events do not hinder us.
Lastly, I come to the exceedingly important point of substance raised by the right hon. Member for Hendon to which attention must be given. He said that if this Act is allowed to lapse the effect will be that this new, flourishing and healthy industry will be left at the mercy of foreign competitors, who may deliberately set out to crush it; and they can do that in two ways. In the first place, they have practically a monopoly of some of the most important dyes and they could make it a condition of supplying those dyes to our manufacturers that they should also take the cheaper quality dyes. The German industry might say that if they want to have their specialities they must also take the other range of their dyes. In the second place, they might sell for a time at a ridiculously low price, below the cost of production, a large range of dyes made here in order to bring our industry to its knees and compel it to allow a much larger importation of dyes than now prevails, and the effect of that would be to stop valuable work in chemical research and development which is now proceeding. If that were so it would undoubtedly be a grave evil. No one can deny that it is a possibility, but because it is a possibility we must not assume that it is a probability, still less that it is a certainty. I am very sceptical about this prophecy of dumping in order to ruin our industries. In 1920, after the War, Parliament was terrified of that eventuality and the depreciation of currency, and passed an Act to stop all dumping. But that Act was never once put into force on any one occasion because the situation never arose, and, therefore, I am exceedingly sceptical whether it will arise in this case. If it did I am certain that Parliament by general assent would be prepared to act in order to prevent such an eventuality.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: It would be too late the industry would be destroyed.

Sir H. SAMUEL: It would not be too late. If there were any signs that such an attempt was being made, that the condition was being imposed that no specialities would be supplied unless the others were taken, this House would support measures which could be taken without delay and by general consent. This is the only argument of substance in the
whole of this agitation, And on the strength of that argument, doubtful as it is, this vast edifice of propaganda has been based. I must congratulate the dye-makers on the effect of their propaganda. It is directed by a master hand, and has not been countered by any adequate or effective presentation of the case on the other side. Every industry naturally wishes to maintain any privilege it may have. The dye-making industry is prosperous. Lord Melchett, in presiding at 'a meeting of Imperial Chemicals, Limited, referring to the dye section, said:
We are making increasing profits in spite of severe competition and reduced prices in this branch of our business.
I am glad that their enterprise is rewarded. It is perfectly legitimate, and naturally they desire to maintain any trade advantage which any Act of Parliament gives them. No industry has ever done otherwise. I have never come across any industry which has been given a measure of protection which has been willing to forgo that advantage when the period fixed came to an end. Why should they not carry on a propaganda in order to maintain their privilege and present the best case they can? But when this Act was passed it was definitely agreed between the parties, whose interests were, to some extent, conflicting, that it should be a temporary Measure and extend for 10 years, and no more. Lord Moulton, who was the real father of this Measure, suggested a period of five years, but a longer period was asked for and the consumers agreed. The dye-users agreed that it should be a period of 10 years. They have suffered considerable economic hardships through the operation of this Act. Nevertheless they have assisted and co-operated in every way to promote its smooth working, and they have done so on the faith that the undertaking given to them should be kept. To many of us it appears that there is no reason why Parliament should enact fresh legislation in breach of the agreement and extend this Measure longer than the period which was originally agreed. The burden of proof rests upon those who desire fresh legislation, and I submit that that proof has not been given.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): The Committee this afternoon, on a very im-
portant subject, has returned once more to the fundamental controversy between Protection and Free Trade, which was perhaps almost inevitable in a debate of this kind. In summarising the position and giving the reasons why the Government have come to the decision they have, I want as far as possible to base my speech on the facts, and I hope to show the Committee that everything has been taken into account in the determination of the Government's policy. Let me say also that this decision was not taken lightly or until after all the circumstances had been very fully explored. It must be obvious to every hon. Member that very powerful forces are arrayed on both sides. On the one side there are the dye manufacturers and pigment makers and also kindred industries and undertakings. They are naturally desirous of maintaining to the full, if they possibly can, the large measure of protection which they obtained under this Act.
On the other side, there are the colour users, the Calico Printers' Association and the great industries of woollen and cotton textiles, whose position at the moment is serious if not grave, who are presenting very impressive arguments in support of a discontinuance of this legislation. It is the duty of any Government which has to make a decision of this kind to weigh up all the facts and decide to the best of its judgment what is desirable in the national interest. In order that I might be fortified in what I have to say I went back to the debate in December, 1920, and in particular to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) who presented the Bill on that occasion.
Without dealing at too great length with the history of this matter, may I say that it is beyond all dispute that this Act originated in the circumstances of the War. That crisis had thrown a fierce light upon the extent to which this country was dependent on German supplies in this respect. Certain regulations were introduced during the War and the Government made large contributions in money to the British dye industry. Then there came a period, from 1919 until this legislation at the end of 1920, a period called the interregnum during which, largely because of a judgment given by Mr. Justice Sankey as he then
was-he has since risen to greater heights-dyes were imported into this country, without restriction, to the aggregate value of some£7,000,000. From some points of view that intensified the case, or so it was argued, for the Dyestuffs Act of 1920. But running through all the debates on that Act there was the desire to establish the industry with an elaborate and indeed very complete measure of Protection, in order that never again should this country be exposed to the kind of danger which was so remarkably revealed during the War crisis.
I imagine that the chief questions before us this afternoon are whether the conditions which were laid down in that discussion in 1920, and in the Act, have been fulfilled, whether this industry has been established on a sound and satisfactory basis, and whether any case can be made out for the continuance of the legislation. There were imported into those debates of 1920 many arguments or, at all events, some arguments regarding the exchange position. It was not until four or live years later that we again became anchored to the gold standard and stabilised exchanges and part of the plea then was for some kind of safeguarding against dumping, or against the exporting advantage given to other countries because of the depreciated exchange. That argument figured in the debates and there is not the least doubt it influenced a certain section of Parliamentary opinion. Divisions were taken in the House of Commons and Amendments were moved from the Liberal benches and supported by most of my hon. Friends who were in the House at the time, but the Coalition Government had an overwhelming majority, and the Act was justified as an experiment in order that this industry might be established.
So we entered upon the 10-year period which concludes on 14th January, 1931. It is rather remarkable that in the speech of my right hon. Friend opposite there should have been, just the suggestion, though it was nothing more, that this period was not in the nature of a definite Parliamentary understanding or bargain. It is true that, in the course of those debates, not a great deal was made of the actual time limitation but the words were very clearly inserted in the Act—10 years and no longer. More-
over, this was recognised as an altogether exceptional form of Protection, because it was au out-and-out prohibition of the entry of these goods into this country, save to the extent that it was modified by a licensing system and, although I have had debates for a good many years now with Protectionists of every shade and colour, I have never found them particularly enthusiastic for that form of tariff restriction. Generally speaking they have advocated a tariff on some scale, but they have always insisted at the same time upon the wisdom of administering it without interfering in any industrial operation. Nevertheless this extreme and exceptional form of Protection-and because exceptional resting again very largely on the limited period for which it was applied-was embodied in the Act. So, I do not think that my right hon. Friend can ride off with any hint or suggestion that there was not a quite definite impression at that time that this Measure was to be of limited application.
It should be observed that in the Amendment now before us he himself does not suggest an indefinite extension of the Act which, presumably; he would have no difficulty in suggesting if his case were substantiated. He merely proposes a five-year period, or, in other words, another limited term, at the end of which I have not the least doubt we would have exactly the same arguments, and during the whole of that five years propaganda would be going on one way and another as to whether the legislation should be further continued or not, and there would be a considerable amount of speculation as to the possible economic colour of the Government which would be in office at the date of expiry and what action that Government would be likely to take. Is it unreasonable to suggest that that state of affairs is not desirable in any industry and that there should not be this overhanging doubt as to whether legislation of this kind is permanent or temporary, and whether another lease of a highly protective system may or may not be granted 7 I hope to show later that there are many arguments for a definite decision, subject to certain statements which I shall make, regarding certain important points, quite properly raised by hon. Members.
I should like to associate myself with what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. CunliffeLister) as to the progress of the industry during the 10 years and as to the importance of agreement upon the common ground in this matter. No doubt the position has, literally, been changed to almost exactly the opposite of what it was in the pre-legislation period. We are now using, in this country, dyestuffs produced to the extent of probably 93 per cent. in the country, subject to certain modifications. The numbers employed in the industry have increased and the price of the commodity has diminished, although we must not fall into any confusion or error on that point. The price has not fallen solely for this reason, but partly for this reason and partly for others. We are overtaking, to-day, the supply in the great bulk of the central lines in the trade although, admittedly, there is more difficulty as far as specialities or novelties are concerned. All that may be admitted regarding the 10 years of the operation of the Act, and all that has been set out with admirable clearness and skill in the report of the Dyestuffs Industry Development Committee on which much of our debate this afternoon is founded.
I should like, in passing, to pay a tribute to the very excellent service which that statutory Committee has rendered and the care with which they heard evidence and considered the whole problem before this report was presented. But when we come to the report itself let the hon. Members observe that there is no direction whatever as to the future. There is no pronouncement as to whether the legislation should be continued or abandoned, and, if I were sitting on the bench, though I cannot hope to pretend to any power or ability of that kind, I should say that a case is probably established or just established on that report against the continuance of the Act if other external factors in the industry and the industries affected are taken into account—because there are very powerful arguments which relate to the burden placed upon colour-users and which no hon. Member seeking to discharge a national duty, as we all are, can afford to ignore.
Let me inform hon. Members that I went into the actual report itself before this decision was taken and I went even further. The concluding paragraph of the report said that the two sides to the industry should, continuing the co-operation which they had previously enjoyed, get together again, and see whether they could not arrive at some agreed proposal. I personally met Mr. Woolcock, the chairman of the committee and some other representatives of the two interests and again entrusted to them the duty of making a further report in the hope that they might arrive at agreement and give us some kind of indication upon which a decision could be based. That conference was representative of the dyestuff manufacturers, and of the colour-users, but after a further attempt which I have not the least doubt was very sincerely and efficiently made, they had to report to me that they were still in virtually complete disagreement. In other words, an indication could not be given and these powerful interests remained arrayed on either side of the controversy. Those are the main facts of the situation and the Government had to make up its own mind upon a variety of other factors which arose, partly in the course of the report and partly in our review of the conditions in other industries, which I will now try to present in summarised form.
Let me turn to the question of price because there is no doubt that it goes to the heart of this controversy. All kinds of prices, I have no doubt, obtained during the War period but in 1920—when we were still in the boom which followed the War and before prices broke—I think the price had touched as high as four shillings and some pence per pound-a kind of average price taken throughout. During the years since that time the price has fallen pretty steadily until to-day it is about is. 6½d., or even less, per pound which is an increase of rather more than 50 per cent, on the average pre-War price of one shilling. It is true that, as far as the index of wholesale prices goes, that appears to be rather higher than the index of many basic commodities in this country, but I am quite prepared to recognise that the price has come down to that extent and that is a factor which we must admit. Dur-
ing this time, also, there was the operation—and this is important from the point of view of much of the argument put forward—of the price factor in the industry. That price factor was at one time as high as three times the pre-War level, I think, falling to 2½ and 2, and, resting to-day about 1 3/4 or 75 per cent. above the pre-War price. According to my information it is acknowledged that, in practice, many of the prices charged have been below that level and the manufacturers suggest at the present time that they can keep it below the 1s. 6d. average; they can go on-so their contention runs-at a price which will compare with that of the Continental supplies, while quality conditions will at the same time be satisfied.
This is, of course, very largely a question of the Continental supplies, because only to a limited extent do we import dyestuffs from America or other parts of the world. This is, broadly and generally, for the purpose of our debate this afternoon, a question of the British Dyestuffs Industry vis-a-vis Continental competition. It is a very remarkable fact that the industry has been prepared to give what is, virtually, a guarantee of the price level and to say, in effect, "We are now so powerfully organised that we can deliver at that price and at that quality." They have gone further and have said, "If we do not fulfil those conditions"—which are the conditions laid down in a great deal of the fiscal argument which took place—"then you can import these goods." But surely it is perfectly fair to say, on the other side, that if those conditions can he satisfied the central part of the case for this Protection has disappeared.
May I pass to another feature, and a not unimportant one? It has been contended that during the operation of this legislation the dyestuffs manufacturers in this country have tended to concentrate very largely on the great bulk lines of manufacture, and that they have not devoted the same attention to those special classes or novelties on which considerable sections of the textile industry of this country depend. I think that that is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I do not know that I am prepared to criticise the dyestuffs manufacturers very harshly on that account. I am quite willing to admit that for a certain period
they did not get the full benefit of this legislation, that there was a kind of overflow from the Reparations Acts, and that there was on the market probably one-and-a-half or two years' supply, owing to the Sankey judgment.
But I must remind the Committee that all these considerations, or by far the greater part of them, were present to the Government in 1920 when this period of 10 years was fixed, and, as a matter of fact, proposals were made from the Conservative benches in the Coalition that the period should be limited to three or five years, or in any case should be much short of the 10 years ultimately embodied in the Act. All these things were perfectly plain and clear, but, be that as it may, it remains true that there has been a tendency to concentrate on what I will call the bulk lines and not to pay the same attention to the novelties or specialities or more particular brands. That raises a very important consideration when we come to the textile trades.
Sometimes hon. Members opposite are inclined to suggest that we have no business experience and that many of these decisions are taken on purely political grounds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I refute an argument of that kind. I am not going into the business experience either of myself or of hon. Members on that side of the Committee, but we are very much in the position of any occupant of this office. We consult the acknowledged authorities in the industries affected, and we have done that to a very considerable extent in this case. I have been told over and over again as regards the textile industry, that there are important classes of things which are sold to-day not so much on the quality of material as on colour and appearance and that this is an increasing factor of very great importance in an age when, if industrial conditions are better than at present, the turnover and demand is quicker, and people do not look for that durability of quality that they used to, but for a variety in colour, and there is greater change from year to year in textiles. A consideration of this kind must be of very great importance.
It may be suggested that this is provided for under the operation of the licensing committee, that in fact, as re-
gards these special brands, you can get them into the country at very short notice. and I do not dispute that, taken by and large, the licensing committee has operated with very considerable efficiency and that complaints have diminished within recent years. But that does not remove the contention, which is made by many of these manufacturers and dye-users, that there are still certain difficulties in getting hold of these dyes, that from some points of view the applications are not made because they know they have to go to a licensing committee of this kind, that to some extent they are content to avoid trouble by putting up with substitutes not entirely satisfactory, and that this must have important reactions on the extent to which they can keep their markets for those classes of goods. That is, in my judgment, a point which we cannot possibly overlook.
My right hon Friend contended, in the course of his introductory remarks, that the exports of those coloured articles had either increased or at all events had not decreased as the exports of other kinds of textiles had diminished in recent times. On the figures, that is no doubt true, but that is far from being anything like the end of the argument in this case. We are perfectly well aware that great political and other difficulties in important markets have hit the great staple industries, those great bulk lines of trade, of which the Lancashire trade is one, and I am not the least surprised that the figures of the reduction of exports in those lines are to-day of a falling character, and I should regard that as a much stronger case to quote than the trend of the exports of the coloured goods to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
Now I want to pass to another consideration, as to the future structure of this industry if this Dyestuffs Act disappears.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has given the views of various people; will he give us the views of the Service Departments, for which I particularly asked?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am coming to that. I was about to point now to the structure of this industry. A very large part of the propaganda of these recent times has suggested that if the Dyestuffs Act
is removed, the industry is either going to collapse or to operate under very great difficulties. I cannot bring myself to believe anything of the kind, because we are not dealing here with an industry in which you have a great multitude of scattered producers. On the contrary, it is substantially true that there are two great bodies, the Imperial Chemical Industries to which the British Dyestuffs Corporation passed some years ago, and the Clayton Aniline Company, which is under Swiss control, and outside of that we have perhaps a score of manufacturing enterprises in Great Britain. In other words, there has been a considerable measure of concentration in the industry, and there is not the least doubt that that concentration, because one of them at all events is a very powerful body, would enable the industry to stand up to any dislocation, even if I grant for a moment that there would be a dislocation, if the Act were to disappear.
But I imagine that the difficulty that is present in the minds of many of the Members of this Committee is as to what will happen in the case of the manufacturers in this country and in the case of the Interressen-Gemeinschaft, an organisation of German producers, and indeed of other producers, mainly in Europe. I cannot give the Committee any information on that point this afternoon. I can only mention to the Committee the kind of speculation which takes place very largely in conversation, but to the best of my knowledge not in concrete proposals. It has been suggested, first of all, that there might be a combination of world producers, including even American producers. That is discussed by most students of this problem, and there is a tendency rather to suggest that there might be at any rate agreement between British and German producers, and many of these people contend that whether the Act is continued or not, there will be an agreement of that kind. Whether the association between Swiss and German producers would be sufficient to bring the former in also I cannot say, but it is certainly present to the minds of dyestuffs consumers that they might be exposed to the danger of a European cartel if an agreement of that kind took place.
I am advised, on all the information before me, to say that it is probably more likely that there will be an agreement or
understanding between British and German producers, and that that agreement may well be independent of whether this Act continues or lapses, though I do not dispute that the continuance of the Act might be used, by one side at all events, as a bargaining asset. Be that as it may, in any event I do not anticipate for a moment that there could be any break-up of the structure of the industry or any scramble of interests, because it seems to me perfectly incredible that those powerful organisations in this country and in Germany are incapable of an understanding or would engage on the market in a ruinous price-cutting campaign, which would bring no benefit or help to one or the other. If that is the state of affairs, I do not think there need be undue anxiety about the structure of the industry itself.

Sir R. HORNE: Suppose they do engage in ruinous price-cutting, what about the workmen who are employed? Would they have any industry to be employed in?

Mr. GRAHAM: They are not going to lose their market; I see no danger of any development of that kind.

Sir R. HORNE: The right hon. Gentleman anticipated ruinous price-cutting by Germany or America. That is the hypothesis upon which his statement is made. How does he assume in that case that employment can be given here?

Mr. GRAHAM: If the two great industries embarked on a ruinous price-cutting campaign of that kind, one or the other would go under, or both would be seriously weakened, but I am expressly saying to the Committee that in my judgment, in what is largely a field of argument or speculation, I do not believe that that is going to be the result.

Mr. MOND: In every other open country in the world, including Belgium, there is intense competition in dyes at the present time. If this country becomes open, is it not probable that it would take place here?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is covered by my reply to the right hon. Member for Hill-head, but I am passing on to the Committee the information which is given to me on the other side, and there is a very great deal of support for it. So
that I do not anticipate any difficulty at all regarding the structure of the industry itself, more particularly when we remember the powerful nature of the leading organisations in this country.
6.0 p.m.
I have tried to take the points so far in order as they have 'been presented in this debate, and I want to turn now to that question of national defence. It is quite true that this was a consideration in 1920, and indeed during the War and before the Act was passed. No Government would take a decision of this kind without having regard to Service requirements, but any danger from the Service point of view depends again on either the serious weakening or the disappearance of the industry. As regards these chemical industries that is a very large part of the case for their protection. I have said I do not believe for a moment that the industry is going to suffer, and if that is true then the defence position is secure, but in any event it is perfectly unfair, as the textile industries have pointed out, that if it becomes a question of defence they should be asked to carry in the main a burden of that kind. All Governments must make provision, so long as the world remains in its existing condition, for defence; but the defence must be provided under other heads, and in so far as it is related to this matter, I think I could give a complete reply. A considerable number of university professors have intervened with the plea that if this industry disappears, because of the lapsing of this Act, they will lose the basis of a great deal of the work being done in chemical research and in the training of chemists. They think they will lose a. large part of that effort to link science and industry together with which none of us will disagree. My reply to that is just my reply to the other point, that this industry will continue and that the maintenance of research will he secured. We have our own Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and it will become a question as to the best methods by which this research is to be safeguarded whether indirectly or in conjunction with the industries that are affected. I want to remind the Committee that there are very great difficulties in a problem of that kind. A good deal of research is carried on at the present
day in close contact with individual industries. There are research associations, and it is open to this industry to get an arrangement of that kind. The difficulty of such an arrangement, however, is that when the Government appear through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, there is very often a contention that to be effective, it must, to some extent, interfere with the commercial policy of the concern. It is my hope and belief that that difficulty can be removed, and, in any event, I make it perfectly plain that it will be the duty of any Government to see that the research is fully safeguarded, either through that particular method or in any way that we can devise.
I want to pass to what is, after all, the leading consideration before us, that is, the bearing of this dyestuffs industry on our great textile trades. Attempts have been made to belittle the arguments that the textile trades have advanced. In order to put the matter beyond all doubt, we had consultations of an informal kind with the different sections of Lancashire cotton manufacture. We had representations from the woollen textile trades in Yorkshire. In short, those industries have been very fully heard. We had a representative deputation which covered spinners and manufacturers in Lancashire, the trade union representatives, and, indeed, all sections of the cotton industry and, at the same time, as I understand, all sections of the woollen industry. There was a unanimous representation to the Government that this Act should lapse, that it had fulfilled its purpose, that it was unfair that these industries should continue to carry the burden, and that they should now be given the encouragement of perfectly free access to the dyestuffs that they required.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what bodies represented the textile industry?

Mr. GRAHAM: The Master Cotton Spinners and other federations—

Mr. GIBSON: I mean from Yorkshire.

Mr. GRAHAM: The employers in the Yorkshire industry. There were representatives of both sides of the industry. They made that unanimous request. They do not dispute the progress of this industry, and the manner in which prices have been reduced, but they quite pro-
perly point to the fact that they had borne the burden during the 10 years of the operation of the Act; and they also pointed to that section in the report of the Dyestuffs Industry Development Committee which refers to the extent to which the cost of dyes enters into the cost of their products.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: May I ask whether the cotton dyers were concerned? Many spinners and weavers do not use dyes.

Mr. GRAHAM: I may tell my hon. Friend that the spinners and the employers in the cotton industry, who, after all, are concerned, made that united representation to the Government, a representation which, under existing conditions, we could not possibly ignore. May I put to the Committee quite impartially the kind of controversy which we had to decide I contend that this industry has been established and than its structure is not in danger. Here we have an industry of dye manufacture which employs between 7,000 and 8,000 people. Far be it from anyone to belittle that total, for every contribution to direct employment is wanted. In Lancashire, however, 500,000 people are employed, and hundreds of thousands are directly or indirectly engaged in the woollen industry. I am not going to suggest that that vast textile population, which is far in excess of the numbers engaged in the dyestuffs industry, is all immediately and directly affected by this Act, but I am going to say that very important branches of its trade are affected by this legislation, and I have already given reasons to the Committee why that is so.
What is the position in Lancashire at the present time, and what, to an appreciable extent, is the position in Yorkshire? I will concentrate in the main on Lancashire, because no one who goes there to discuss the matter with different sections of Lancashire cotton can fail to be impressed by the fact that there is a bewildering difference of opinion as to the remedy for the present state of affairs. An enormous part of the export trade has been lost. They cannot agree as to the form of amalgamations; they cannot agree as to price; they cannot agree as to merchanting. In fact, there is controversy in all the five or six dif-
ferent sections of the trade. There is no individual contribution or remedy which will provide a cure for Lancashire's distress, but it is true beyond all question that it is entirely in the national interest at the present time to add up all the contributions that we can possibly make, and beyond doubt one contribution is the perfectly free access to dyes, the absence of restriction, and freedom to buy wherever suits them best. If the British industry is in a position to supply at competitive prices, then it will get the trade. The textile industry and Lancashire cotton have everything to gain by the removal of every possible restriction, and I have more confidence in putting that to the Committee when I believe, as I do, that there can be no real damage to dyestuffs manufacturers in the process. That is the kind of problem on which we have to make up our minds.
Hon. Members have raised the question of the dumping of Continental and other supplies. There is no doubt that this is a. very difficult problem for every one of us, and I want to say one or two general words before I pass to the particular pro, position. Every week I am asked questions by hon. Members on the other side as to what we propose to do to deal with what they call the wholesale dumping of all kinds of commodities. To-day it is German cereals; to-morrow Russian wheat, and on another occasion, Russian timber or doors; and there is a persistent attempt to try to get some kind of remedy against what hon. Members regard as an economic disease of the present day. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) pointed out the other night that we have to be satisfied that goods are being dumped in great quantities at less than the cost of production in the country of origin. I must tell the Committee that with all the information at our disposal, it is very difficult, if not indeed impossible, in most cases to prove anything of the kind. It is all the more difficult when we have not statistics as to the world cost of production of these articles.
No one will dispute that in existing conditions there is a great world surplus of wheat, and that that large quantity of wheat can be measured with reasonable accuracy, but who is going to allege dumping when the world price is generally depressed? Does any hon. Member
seriously suggest that this country is to discriminate against individual countries from which these supplies come, in order to try to deal with this situation? The moment that any hon. Member makes a proposal of that kind, he must tell us—it is his duty to tell us—the way in which he would deal with the problem. But it is not to be dealt with by means of general prohibition. It is not to be covered in that way at all. The only possible way of dealing with dumping from any individual country is by discrimination against that country, either by complete prohibition of the entry of the particular goods, or by a particular tariff. No sooner would that be done, than we should run counter to important treaties. I had to point out when the German case was before the House, that if any discriminatory action were to be taken against Germany, it would involve tearing up—and that only after 12 months' notice—the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty of 1924. In the case of Russia, which is the acute controversy at the present time—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is rather broadening the discussion, and if I permitted him to go into these matters, other Members may be tempted to follow him.

Mr. GRAHAM: I was about to reply to the concrete question which was put to me. I am trying to show the difficulty of dealing with a problem of this description. As far As I can make out as regards dyestuffs, there is no world figure of the actual supplies. It may be that certain estimates are made in the industry, but there is nothing comparable with the figures which we get for other commodities. The real question is whether there is any real reason to believe that large quantities of dyestuffs will be unloaded on the market in this country after this legislation goes.

Major CHURCH: Is it not a fact that 40 years ago the Germans actually adopted a policy of dumping, and attacked our own analine dyes? They brought the price down to 5d. and then, having destroyed the industry in this country, put the price up to 2s. 6d.

Mr. GRAHAM: Many efforts of that kind have been made, but surely my hon.
Friend must admit that there is a vast difference between the structure of this industry to-day and 40 years ago in this country. We are now dealing with powerful organisations. To the best of my knowledge, there is not likely to be any large-scale dumping of the kind. I have made the fullest inquiry, and, oddly enough, the suggestion is not of German dumping to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers; the suggestion is that American supplies will be unloaded for entry into this country after the prohibition goes. It is quite impossible to indicate what step will be taken by this Government if there were any dumping. I have already told hon. Gentlemen quite frankly that if we are not careful in the steps that we take, we stand the risk of doing serious damage to other sections of our trade; but I am not satisfied that the danger is real. In any case, if the earlier suggestion is correct that there is likely to be some form of agreement—which I believe—between British and German producers, then I imagine they should be strong enough to deal with any danger under that head.
I have never disguised from the House that this is a problem for which powerful arguments can be adduced on both sides, but I fall back upon my early contention that the problem on which the Government had to pronounce has been that of a balance of advantages, and we were satisfied that the dyestuffs industry in this country could continue in perfect strength and safety after this Act had lapsed, as indeed was the original contention when it was passed, and that the time has come when any advantages which will follow its disappearance should be passed on to the great textile trades. No one disputes the precarious condition in which those trades are today, and, keeping that in view, we come to the quite definite decision that, as from 14th January next, this Act should disappear.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I wish to intervene only for a very few minutes, because I am afraid that, just as in the case of the Colour Users' Association, there is not complete unity of opinion, so the Committee will be greatly surprised to hear that there may not be complete unity on these benches. I
warmly agree with what has been said by the President of the Board of Trade that this is a case where one has to consider calmly a balance of arguments. It would be in the highest degree foolish to suppose that every consideration of weight is found on one side. I would go further, and say that in my opinion it is probably only by a process of gross exaggeration that one can assert either that very splendid or very dreadful consequences will follow according to the choice which the House makes. It is essentially a practical question. I remember to have read, for I do not think I was in the House at the time, that the late Mr. Asquith, when this subject came up in 1920, was most careful to assert that it did not, in fact, raise the abstract question of Free Trade and Protection. Perhaps the Committee will
allow me to quote the passage. Mr. Asquith, who never voted against this Bill at any stage, said on 7th December, 1920:
I want if I may to impress upon the Government—
he was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench—
that there is really no question here of what I may call the abstract question of Free Trade and Protection. It does not arise. The question is what is the best—in other words, what is the least inconvenient and least injurious—method, of safeguarding what we all agree to be an important national industry—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 7th December, 1920; col. 1993, Vol. 135.]
I am very glad that the debate has not rim upon, and so far as I am concerned it shall not run upon, any abstract arguments of that sort. To my way of thinking, much the strongest practical consideration that can be presented to the Committee in favour of the Government's proposal-and those who sit on this side of the House above the Gangway, I think, admit it-is that it is the invariable experience of all of us, it is part of the natural history of the matter, that if we do pass an Act of Parliament, to run for so many years, under which particular branches of industry undoubtedly get special help, at the end of that period they will come and say they want more. That is absolutely a universal proposition, and however overwhelming the success of this Act had been, however completely it put the British manufacturers of dyes into a position of security, it would be asking too much of human
nature to suppose that they would come forward with enthusiasm and say they did not require it any more. Unquestionably that is a consideration which every sensible man must keep constantly in the front of his mind.
At the same time, it is not only on that side that arguments of very considerable extravagence have been used. I see on the Treasury Bench my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who is Member for Preston, and from a motion he made just now I am not sure that he may not be taking part in the debate. I am sure he will not mind if I remind the House of the language which he used about this particular Act when he moved its rejection on the Third Reading 10 years ago. I imagine from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade that it is now common ground that this Act during its existence has to a very considerable extent-the Government say completely-achieved its object; that it has not produced an inefficient industry, but a very efficient one, that the committee has to a large extent worked in a very practical way, and that the Act has very materially promoted research. I should not think that at this time of day, in the month of December, 1930, there are many people who would deny that; but in the month of December, 1920, my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for War moved the rejection of this Act, when it was presented for Third Reading, and I will read two extracts from his speech. He said in his first sentence:
In my opinion this Bill will do immense harm to two very large industries in this country, it will not achieve the purpose for which it is drawn, it will lead to inefficiency, unnecessary bureaucracy and to a general upset, where, by other methods, there might be a growing trade."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1920: col. 1114, Vol. 136.]
That was only the beginning of his speech. Presently he warmed to his work, and with that robustness which we all admire in the right hon. Gentleman he used this language in the final passage of his peroration. I cannot presume to reproduce his tone; this is from the cold
pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He spoke of the Measure as:
This Bill which does not do anything at all to further research, to develop science, to give us a chance of becoming what we ought to be, one of the first nations on
earth, not only in this trade, but in any other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1920; col. 1119, Vol, 136.]
That is a warning against being too emphatic on the other side. Frankly, on this subject, I do not find myself as emphatic on either side as, for my peace of mind, I should wish to be. I feel quite frankly the force of a good many things which the President of the Board of Trade has said, but at the same time I cannot really bring myself to believe that there is anything very outrageous in considering whether we have reached the moment when this Act should cease to operate, as it will unless Parliament takes some other step. Not many days ago, for reasons which appear to be much more flimsy than any reason here, the Government thought it highly desirable to have an inquiry before they decided something or other about unemployment insurance.
There has been a good deal of controversy here between my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and others as to the real extent of experienced judgment on this subject in many departments. There is this curious situation. The Colour Users' Association—who are not the people who make these dyes—has upon its own council not only Sir Henry Sutcliffe Smith, but also Mr. James Ewing, both of whom say: "Colour users as we are, we do not think that the right practical course at this moment is to put an end to this Act." In the same way, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen, if I understood him aright, says that if this Act were to be continued somewhat longer we might have to face world combinations and cartels, and I do not know what else. If I understand the President of the Board of Trade correctly, he comforts us with the thought that if the Act does come to an end it will still be all right, because a world combination, or a combination between England and Germany, may very well take place.
My own feeling, which I quite agree is of a slightly halting character, perhaps because of my economic past—[Interruption.] We all of us have got pasts-and some of us have got futures. My own feeling is, really, that on balance I should have thought a ease was made out for some continuance of the Act for
a time, and for a really effective inquiry in the meantime. I do not attach the least importance to the fact that gentlemen who are getting an advantage out of the present law desire it to be continued. Of course they would. On this occasion, I do not attach any importance to the abstract arguments of Free Trade or Protection, and in that respect I am following a very good example, the example of the late Mr. Asquith; but it does appear to me, and I venture to think there are some others on these Liberal benches who will agree with me, that the wise judgment that might be reached on a matter of this sort would be not pedantically to bring the Act to an end without giving the opportunity, by some limited extension of its life, to have an inquiry, properly conducted, to see what the real result would be.

Mr. MOND: I intervene in this debate with much diffidence since as is probably well known to most members of the House I am a director of Imperial Chemical Industries, who manufacture 50 per cent, of the output of dyestuffs in this country. I have listened with very great interest to the observations of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), and I would say this at once, as representing, so far as I do, a large section of the dye-making industry, that we would be perfectly satisfied for our case to be made the subject of a Government inquiry, subject to temporary continuance of the Act for a year, or whatever period might be decided by the House. The President of the Board of Trade laid very great stress on the damage that might be done to the textile industry by the continuation of this Act, and also on the fact that the organisation which controls a large proportion of the output of dyes was strong enough to be able to look after itself. I would point out to him that this same body which produces the dyes and is interested in the continuance of the Act has as its largest customer, in another direction, that very same textile industry. No one is more vitally interested in the prosperity of the textile industry than the chemical industry. It is our largest customer not for dyestuffs alone but for other things, such as alkalis. So far as that is concerned, and I do not put the case any higher, there is a very genuine
difference of opinion as to what the effect would be on the textile industry of the continuance of this Act.
I also wish to make this further observation on the economic side. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that the disappearance of this Act will not strike a fatal blow to the large corporation which makes half the dyes of this country. It must be remembered, when it is stated that the industry is quite strong enough to look after itself, that it may be true that one half may be able to carry the burden, but the other half may not be able to do so. Therefore, it is not quite so safe as has been made out. Take the question of dumping. The President of the Board of Trade does not seem to have gone very fully into that part of the subject. There has been a price war in dyes and that has been one of the most bitter fights that has ever been waged in the history of commerce. In every free import country to-day that battle rages. It is true that Imperial Chemical Industries took over a large section of the dyestuffs industry, and it has been able to fight very hard in China and the East to maintain its position. If this competition is allowed to spread to this country it may damage the industry considerably. If this heavy burden is thrown upon the British maker, you will make the whole thing far more difficult.
May I put this point? I happen to know that the instructions have been given to German salesmen to follow British prices unless the Americans start importing, but, if the Americans start importing, to slaughter prices and keep them out. Then they are to go to a customer and say, "We make certain specialities; if you want these you must give us all your business, and Mr. So-and-so has taken the whole range, so if you refuse he will have the advantage." Here you create a difficulty for the textile industry, because you put them under the obligation of wishing to use the British article and being forced to use a foreign article in order to maintain their individual positions. The instructions which I believe are at present being given to the German salesmen are as follows: You will follow British trade and British prices unless the Americans start importing dyes into this country, and then you will smash prices in order to
keep them out." That is simply using this country as a battleground.
That may or may not be of great importance to this country. It is quite true that it is not a matter which is vital to the company with which I am associated, but I would just like to make this one defence of the dye makers. I question the argument which has been used by the President of the Board of Trade. There are in the world some 10,000 known dyes. There are 4,000 in current use, and we make 2,500. It has taken us eight years to build up this industry. It is economically impossible for us to undertake this great range of manufacture of dyes at once. You cannot embark upon the manufacture of the whole range of these special dyes until the necessary men have been properly trained. It cannot be done. Further than that, you cannot get the scientific staff with the knowledge and ability and spread them over this wide range of extraordinary complex subjects. As an example, to carry out the chemical five-year plan in Russia would involve the combined technical staff of Imperial Chemical Industries and Interressen Gemeinschaft. Such a combined staff could not be created in less than 20 years. In the same way you cannot embark upon the manufacture of these specialities except after a considerable period of time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said that there was an agreement to prohibit us from manufacturing certain dyestuffs in existence.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I quoted the report.

Mr. MONO: I know there is no such agreement in existence so far as one half of the industry is concerned, and I do not think there is any agreement in the other half. The arguments we have heard this afternoon seem to me to be taking the House away from what I believe is the really essential national point. I urge the House to give the Act another opportunity.
The President of the Board of Trade has connected the question of research and chemical manufacture. It cannot be too strongly stressed that there is a profound difference between organic and inorganic chemistry. It is exactly on that point that I would like to make a few observations to the House, which I believe will be of more assistance in
helping hon. Members to make up their minds than any arguments of an economic character that have been put before the House. There is a great difference between organic and inorganic chemistry. Organic chemistry is really the science of the carbon atoms. This model which I have here represents what is commonly known as the benzene ring. Each one of the balls represents one atom of carbon, and each atom of carbon is bound up or associated with an atom of hydrogen. One of these hexagons represents benzene, two represent naphthalene, and three represent anthracene. The whole business of making colours is to try to replace the hydrogen atoms associated with the carbon atoms by atoms of other substances, and it is just on that point that I wish to claim the indulgence of the Committee. What are the other substances used for that purpose? They are nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, sulphur, alkalies, acids and alcohol. Almost every substance that is known to man is used for this purpose, and the raw materials represented are limestone, salt, coal, sulphur, cereals, and metale like arsenic, sodium and iron. In other words, earth, air, fire and water—indeed, all the substances upon which our life is based—enter into this question of the chemistry of the carbon atom. Even cereals enter into it very closely.
The processes carried on involve alterations of temperature and the addition of substances at various pressures, in some cases at very high pressure, which is only just beginning to be developed technically in the world, but we are fairly well on with it. It is like a very complicated game of chess. Imagine a board which is not a square but a cube, and on which no piece has a less complicated movement than a. knight. There you have the infinite variety of combinations and permutations of which the various colours are made, and upon which organic chemical science is based. Unless you have a great school of people doing this work—not a few people in laboratories, but men who can go into it as a future career, who know that, if they study organic chemistry, there will
be a job for them in the future—there can be no organic chemical industry in the country. It is like asking people to play this game of chess and giving them all the books and the pieces in their university life, and then saying to them when they go out into the world: "Your job is to know all about this complicated game, but you shall have no pieces, only the pawns." You could never create a school of chess on that basis.
It is impossible to, build up a really fine organic scientific school in this country unless you have a well-established and sound organic chemical industry. It comprises a study, as I have said, of all the materials upon which our life depends, and the many substances which may in the future have some bearing upon industry. Perkin began this science in this country in 1854. Afterwards, it left these shores and went to Germany, where it was very carefully nurtured. Since Pasteur began with the science of sterilization, there has been, following to some extent upon his work, an extraordinary progress in organic chemistry. Lister began with the study of phenol, and created the science of antiseptics; but phenol is simply another grouping of carbon atoms. Metchnikoff went further, and discovered that extraordinary creature-if one can call it a creature—the enzyme. This material, or animal—no one knows which it is—creates fermentation. It has the peculiar property of eating starch and giving off alcohol. [Interruption.] In that respect, perhaps, it is less fortunate than human beings. All that is known about the chemistry of the enzyme is that it is based upon carbon, and it is only, therefore, by the intense and wide study of the science of organic chemistry that we are likely to gain more knowledge of it.
Further, there is the case—it is not English but German—of Ehrlich, who produced the valuable drug known as salvarsan which is based on carbon. Then you have the hormone, that curious thing which is described as the chemical messenger of the body, which operates in connection with the ductless glands, and can change entirely the nature of a man or woman. It is no exaggeration to say that cases have been known of members of the opposite sex who, for some peculiar
reason, have suddenly been found to lose most of the properties usually attributable to their sex—to grow beards and things of that kind-and who, by proper treatment, have entirely recovered and become perfectly normal again. All that is due to the hormone and the ductless glands. What is the chemistry of the hormone?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): I am afraid that this is very far removed from the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. MOND: I accept your Ruling. I will merely say that the chemistry of the hormone is based upon the chemistry of carbon, and the chemistry of the vitamin, again, is based upon the chemistry of carbon, as has been shown by Sir Lowland Hopkins, that great Englishman who has just been made President of the Royal Society, while Professor Starling has shown the same thing with regard to the hormone. Thus a great school of English chemists has already been built up on the organic chemical side so far as it has gone, but far more remains to be done in that direction in the future, and it is not too much to say that, unless there is a real opportunity for men to go from the university into industry in order to continue their study of organic chemistry, we shall never have the fine science which this country ought to have. The ordinary professor is not going to take the trouble to train men for jobs that do not exist in this country, and the ordinary man is never going to set out upon the years of learning which are necessary in order to become accomplished at this work.
At the present moment we have an organisation for dealing with that question. There is a committee of professors and scientists which sits in association with our industry. They train men in contact with us, and they get considerable sums of money for their universities from us. It would be very hard to justify the continuance of large expenditure in this direction by any commercial company if there were no industry for the purpose of which these men could be used. It is impossible to conceive that this could be done in the absence of such an industry, and it is probable that it would cease to be done after a time.
It is quite true that a case has been made for and against the continuance of this Act, but I seem to feel that behind the case against its continuance there is the influence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is known to hold very rigorous views on this question. He has shown to us, on one side of his public life, the aspect of a man who is unrelenting, and even cruel; but quite lately he has shown us another side of his character—the more harmonious side—as a patron of the fine arts. In regard to this, he might, perhaps, be compared with the Emperor Nero, but, whereas Nero fiddled while Rome burned, the right hon. Gentleman has engaged a complete orchestra to play while his country collapses.
Apart, however, from any political prejudices on the question of Protection or Free Trade, I would make this one plea. It has been said that the future of industry in this country is the future of the chemical industry and that our greatest raw material, coal, which is carbon, on which all this science is based, is the one thing which can assist this country to recover. I would go so far as to make this prediction, that, if the future of industry is based upon chemical industry, the future of chemical industry is based upon the organic chemical industry, and one might almost go as far as to say, also, the future of our knowledge of human life. It is for this House to make up its mind whether it really feels that it is essential to have an organic chemical industry in this country. I do not wish to press the case unduly, because I am interested, but it is not a question of finance, it is not a question of profits; those represent a very trifling side of the whole question. It is a much bigger question than that. If it is felt to be necessary that we should have an organic chemical industry, then do not let us make any move to-night to destroy or even to impair it. If you come to the conclusion that it is not worth while to have such a school of science in England, I shall only regret that I have not been able to make my case before this House for what I believe to be a very important and very profound scientific object. With these words I would leave it to those who have the right to decide, saying as I sit down that I firmly believe that in the future there will be no great nation that
has not an organic chemical industry firmly and well established within its shores.

Mr. WISE: I shall not attempt to follow the last speaker into his most interesting and instructive dissertation on the march of chemical science, but I think it might be convenient if I make at this stage such observations as I have to make on the general issue, rather than, perhaps, at a later stage on the narrower issue. This debate has shown a very remarkable measure of agreement in all parties in the House and on both sides of this controversy in regard to the general facts of the situation. Neither side has challenged the view of the Development Committee that, with the assistance of this Dyestuffs Act, the dyestuffs industry has developed to a very remarkable extent, that it has planted itself firmly in the general economy of the country, that it has been enabled to assist a remarkable and very valuable development in research and in the training of chemists, and that it is supplying, at any rate as to 80 per cent., the needs of the colour users of this country, in quality at least as good as is available from abroad, and at prices which are comparable. The whole controversy, after all, rests largely upon assumptions or expectations as to what may happen, on the one hand if the Act is renewed, or, on the other hand, if it is allowed to lapse.
I found a very discouraging measure of agreement between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and the President of the Board of Trade. Their arguments covered very much the same ground. Both of them were troubled, and apparently the President of the Board of Trade was primarily moved, by what might happen to the textile industries if there were any increase in the cost of dyestuffs. It is very easy to stress particular factors in what is a very involved, critical and dangerous situation, but I cannot help remarking that, when the President of the Board of Trade signed the report which has been issued on the cotton industry, he made, so far as my recollection goes, no reference, nor did the committee, to the effect of the Dyestuffs Act on the difficulties of the cotton industry.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am sorry to interrupt, but I must correct my hon. Friend. I did not sign the report, and I was not, except for a very brief time, a member of the committee.

Mr. WISE: Then I exempt the President of the Board of Trade, but, anyhow, I think the report of the committee was signed by two of his right bon. Friends, and they, as a result of a whole year's inquiry, have not discovered that this measure of assistance in the production of dyestuffs was one of the real difficulties of the cotton industry. When we examine the detailed facts of the industry as to the importance of a change in the cost of dyestuffs, if any change were likely or if any higher price were paid—which is strongly disputed—the matter quickly gets into its proper and very small proportions. The total value of dyestuffs produced in this country is, I believe, somewhere in the neighbourhood of£3,000,000, and the value of the total production of the textile industry is somewhere in the neighbourhood of£250,000,000, so that the total possible effect, at its most, is limited to about
three per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "One per cent."] I am giving the benefit of the widest possible advantage. I myself inquired of a leading manufacturer in the Huddersfield trade as to the importance of dyestuffs and their cost—he is a dyer as well as a manufacturer—in the production of cloth; and he told me that the maximum possible allocation of cost to dyestuffs in the manufacture of woollen cloth is not more than three per cent., or 10. per yard of cloth, the price of which may be 7s. or 8s. a yard; and I saw, in a letter in the "Times" the other day, the statement that, if the cost of dyestuffs were increased by 25 per cent.—and there is no possibility or suggestion of that—the total effect on a suit of clothes would not be more than 1⅓d.
Therefore, the talk about the cost of dyes being a factor in the textile situation is, I think, a misuse of words. Compared with the other factors, as to which the right hon. Gentleman is fully informed, dyes are quite negligible. I recall that the Balfour Report drew attention to the fact that the cost of merchanting woollen and worsted cloth in this country was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent., and that the
cost of drapery distribution of the finished cloth was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40 per cent. In view of these figures, as compared with a maximum of 3 per cent. for dyes, I suggest that the proper task of the Government is to deal with the things which primarily and fundamentally matter. Everybody knows what is the real cause of the difficulties of the cotton, woollen and worsted industries, and we must not be misled by manufacturers, spinners and others who, in a difficult position, in extrentis, are perfectly prepared to throw the blame on anyone else outside the trade if by that means they can satisfy, even temporarily their own consciences. I suggest with great respect that that is what is happening in that trade at this moment.
Then the question arose, and both right hon. Gentlemen addressed themselves to it, as to the probable or possible danger of dumping. It seems to me that, in analysing this problem, there are two possibilities. One is that, if this Act is allowed to lapse, we shall immediately find the German industry attempting to get a grip on this market by dumping; and the other is the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman that in fact the more likely outcome is an agreement. Let us examine both possibilities. The German industry at this moment is working at a percentage of its capacity which is estimated by British experts at, I think, about 25 per cent. Anyhow, the Germans put it at under 50 per cent. of their capacity. Their total production now, thanks to the creation of the dyestuffs industry here and the industries in other countries, is about one-third or more under their pre-War production. At least 50 per cent. of their capacity is at present unused, but they could bring it into operation in a comparatively short time. They have every reason, therefore, if this market is open to them, to try to get a grip in it again.
Moreover, if the case of the colour-users, or some of them—because I would remark that there is a very strong divergence of opinion even among colour-users as to the effect of this Act—if the case of some of the colour-users is correct, and German prices are lower than prices in this country, they have all the advantage of extra profits to induce them to put their surplus production here. It is per-
fectly plain, I think, that, having, as I believe they have now, an agreement with the French and Swiss dye industries, and desiring, no doubt, at some stage or other an agreement with the dye industry in this country, their natural and most likely tactics would 'be to do precisely what they did in 1920, that is to say, to push as much stuff on to this market as possible in order to disorganise our own industry and get a grip here. In 1920, when it was found that the original proclamation was ultra vires, and there was a period of a year during which the market was open, the Germans put on to this market£7,000,000 worth of dyes, which is five or seven times a normal year's import into this country. I think there is every reason to expect that, unless they can come to an agreement, they will certainly dump, and in that case for months, and perhaps for a year or two, the whole progress of an industry which is admittedly a key industry—an industry which, putting aside the War interest, to which I will come in a moment, is vital to the textile trades—may be held up and put into a, state of confusion.
7.0 p.m.
To turn to the other possibility, the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench says that everybody knows that it is customary now with international organisations to come to agreements, and that in this case it is not as though there were a multitude of producers here. There is one great producer, and there are one or two others who count, but, broadly speaking, the industry is in very strong hands, and we need have no fear, because probably very quickly they will come to an agreement with the corresponding German combine. But what has happened to the consumer in that case? What has happened to the interests of the consumer, who desires to get his dyes cheap? If that is his assumption, then the case is even weaker than if my previous assumption is right and, at any rate for a time, there is a period of acute disorganisation of the trade on account of dumping.
The other points made against the existing scheme are points of comparatively small administrative detail. The right hon. Member for Darwen talked 'about the delay in getting licences. In regard to that, there is a great divergence of opinion, 'and I was interested to read what was said by a director of the largest
dyestuff-using firm in the country, who is himself a member of the licensing committee, Mr. Hewin, the Bradford dyer.
He said a week or two ago:
As a representative of one of the largest users in the country, importing several hundred different types of colour annually, for each of which a licence is necessary, I have no hesitation in stating publicly that the licensing procedure has worked extremely smoothly,
This talk about the effect that the licensing system has on the misfortunes of the textile industry and of the inconvenience and delay and loss involved by it is most of it special pleading, which has no substantial basis in fact. I was very interested to hear the right hon. Member for Darwen, who himself, a little time ago, in the discussions on the Coal Bill, moved Clauses pressing for amalgamation, reorganisation, and large-scale production, say that the real case against this procedure is that it injures the interests of the small trader and producer as 'against the big producer. If there are weaknesses in the administration, it is a comparatively easy matter to correct them.
My fundamental criticism in connection with the arrangement here is that I find it quite impossible to understand what conception of policy is really in their minds. Here is an experiment which really is not Protection; there is no tariff required. I was rather interested to observe, in that very interesting and well-documented speech which the ex-President of the Board of Trade made, that he neglected to quote the paragraph in the Development Committee's report which points out that the results that have been obtained in the dyestuffs industry could not have been achieved by any method of Safeguarding or Protection. This is a method, a machinery which seeks to get the advantage of Protection—in the nontechnical sense—without any injury at all to the interests of the consumers. It gives us the advantages of Protection and of Free Trade. It avoids the objections to a tariff as increasing the cost of production, which most of us on these benches feel. I cannot see why the Government, in that extraordinary and unnecessary pursuit of consistency in regard to Free Trade doctrines, should have taken a course which certainly will yield no advantages of 'any substance and which will
probably do us a considerable amount of injury. It is not as if the situation was as it was often before the War. This method of controlling imports by licence gives us a weapon in dealing with the very powerful interests on both sides of the North Sea, which otherwise would not be available.
It is common ground, again, that we are not dealing in this ease with ordinary commercial competition. We are up against what is described, in a report of the League of Nations which I have here, as the most strongly organised and centralised trade in Germany, the trade in which competition among producers has to the largest extent disappeared. The German dyestuff industry is the key to the whole structure of the chemical industries which the Germans have erected. It is an extraordinarily strong combination covering coal mines and a whole host of connected industries. As has been pointed out, the success of the Germans in a great number of industries has been built up on the experience, competence and resources of this great dye industry. In regard to antiseptics, rubber, coal, fuel, motor spirit, and especially in regard to fertilisers, this is so. The power of this industry, if it pleases, to manoeuvre in our markets and against our other interests, if we give it the opportunity, is very great.
The right hon. Gentleman is very troubled about the textile industry of this country. Suppose anything happens so that, by agreement between the two trusts or otherwise, or on account of the removal of that measure of protection, our dyestuff industry, as many people believe may be the case, dies down, what then is to be the position of our textile industries when they find themselves in competition with the German textile industries, closely connected as they are with this great dye industry'? Hon. Gentlemen opposite attach importance to this industry for its use in time of war. That is not, to my mind, a primary consideration, and my attitude towards this proposal is not in the very least based on it. A few days ago I was reading a. statement by a Dane on the inability of British textile manufacturers to compete competently on the Danish market, and the reasons he gave why we were constantly finding ourselves in difficulty was
that the German dyestuffs industry was able to give the German textile manufacturer several weeks or months start in its new dyes, its new colours, its new designs, and its new lines. I should be very glad to furnish the right hon. Gentleman, who seems suddenly to have cheered up as compared with a few minutes ago, with the reference and the authority for that if he desires.
There is the possibility, which is a real danger, that the German industry, again getting a monopoly of production, may use that monopoly in respect of new lines of development and new methods very much to the disadvantage of our own textile industry. There is no doubt that, though the British dye industry has made very great progress, though in regard to 80 per cent. of its production it can compete on equal or better terms with most of the German industry, yet, over a margin of 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. or so, the Germans, with 30 or 40 years experience and research and trained chemists behind them, are still ahead of us. Under this Act we had begun to catch up; we have caught up in many respects. If we let go the machinery and arrangements now, there is an urgent danger that we may lose not only what we have got, but the possibility of getting that extra 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. for our competing textile exporters in neutral markets.
Having said that, there is in my view an overwhelming case for the continuance of this sort of assistance and protection to the dyestuffs industry. I am bound to say that I do not think the Act in its present form can be regarded with satisfaction, and I am therefore opposed to the Amendment proposed from the opposite benches, extending the Act for five years. When the Act was passed, it was not the case that our own dyestuffs industry in this country was solidified into a very great and powerful combine. I do not in the least want to underrate the advantages of that manifold concentration of forces and resources, both from the commercial point of view and from the point of view of research and development, but, at the same time, it does create a new situation with certain not very obscure dangers. For example, as the Measure stands, there is nothing in it to prevent
Imperial Chemicals, Limited, and the German combine from coming to an agreement. I do not know whether they have done it or not. There is nothing in the Measure or in the situation which would prevent them coming to an agreement under which the Germans would quote for particular types of dyestuffs a higher price than they really required, or than was really necessary to yield them a fair rate of profit in, order to enable the British combine to get a high price from British consumers. It would be possible in those circumstances for a quid pro quo to be given in regard to the export market.
I was very much interested by the phrases in the Development Committee's report which point out that, while the British industry has made great progress in the home market, it has made comparatively little progress in the foreign market, very little progress, for example, in the biggest market of all, namely, China. I am not suggesting that it is so, but it is quite conceivable that there are agreements already existing between the two combines for the allocation of foreign markets. If there are not, I see no reason why, moved by the obvious commercial advantages of such agreements, they should not come to arrangements for dividing the foreign markets and keeping the price in the British market. There is nothing in the Act or the existing machinery which would enable us to deal in any way with that situation. Nor is there anything in the Act or machinery which gives a substantial quid pro quo both to the consumer and to the producer for the very special situation in which the British combine finds itself with a practically secure market, and a certainty of selling orders. I think I am right in saying that not many weeks ago Lord Melchett congratulated himself that the dyestuffs part of his great enterprise was not only paying good profits, but paying increasing profits, and I should like to be assured that, in any case where this kind of special protection is given, the Government or some other external body—where there is a great monopolistic combine as in this case—should have the power or possibility of protecting the interests of the consumer.
There is another set of considerations which has not yet entered into legisla- 
tion of this sort, but which ought to enter into it, namely, the interests of the workers, the chemists and the technical staff, who find with a great combine like this that their possibilities of employment are practically limited to one employer. Where under the protection of legislation a great commercial enterprise has been put into that specially favoured position, the Legislature ought to protect the interests both of the consumers and of the employés of the organisation. These seem to me reasonable and proper safeguards. If you put Imperial Chemicals, Limited, in a position in which it can do, by agreement with the Germans, practically what it pleases, in the interests of the whole community, the State ought to take a very much more direct and detailed interest in and have knowledge of its proceedings. If we extend the Act for six years, that would be impossible.
I can only express my very deep disappointment that the Government did not take the opportunity of reviewing the whole position in regard to dyestuffs, continuing to give to this vitally important trade a measure of protection, in a non-fiscal but very real sense, which would enable them to develop what is in every sense of the word a key industry and would at the same time use the opportunity, as they could quite rightly and quite reasonably, for acquiring for the benefit of the whole community a much greater control over the operations of this tremendously powerful corporation, whose interests very often may not be at all the interests either of the British textile industry or of this country, and using that opportunity to secure the real interest of producer and consumer.
The fact of the matter is that the Government appear to have looked at this problem with a sole regard to the Free Trade dogma on which they were brought up. That is a great misfortune both for the country and for this party. This party does not believe in laissez faire. It believes in the proper organisation of the national resources, and in no consideration of the problem of the industries of the country could the need of a dyestuff industry be omitted. In my view, here was an opportunity to hand of putting into operation the views for which the party stands in a case in which
the business interests of the country and the interests of producers and consumers could all have been safeguarded, and it is a very great misfortune that the opportunity may be lost.

Major TRYON: I desire to refer to one or two points that have been made in the debate. In the first place, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) might have spared this industry the gratitude that he expressed. If he has any gratitude to the industry it would be better shown by allowing it carry on its great work than by working against it. I noticed one omision in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. He told us that under the operation of the Act the price of dyes had come down to 1s. 6½d., but he did not tell us that it was during that brief interlude of free imports that existed in 1920 that the price was up at 4s. 4d. and, therefore, there is this direct contrast between the 1s. 6½d. under the Act now and the 4s. 4d. which was the price when we were operating under Free Trade conditions. Perhaps the most vital remark made by the right hon. Gentleman was with reference to dumping. He said that, if there were cutting of prices between us and Germany, one of us would go under. That is true, hut, if you allow this Bill to lapse, you make certain that the one that goes under is this country and not Germany.
This industry has had such an experience as, I think, few industries have gone through. It has had alternating a series of periods under free imports, then under State assistance, then back again to free imports and once more to State assistance, so that it has had over and over again the experience first of one thing and then of the other. There could be no doubt whatever that it has always been under the system if free imports that the industry has been in difficulties, and it has always been at a period when the Government have come in to help that it has prospered.
The point that the textile industry can be seriously injured was completely answered by the last speaker, who overwhelmingly demonstrated that even considerable variation in the cost of dyes could not appreciably affect the textile industry. Beyond that, it seems to me
that, when you have to decide if there was any conflict of interests, which I deny, between the trades, the national interest should be supreme. It should overwhelmingly out-value any interest set up by either of those trades. Neither the dye trade nor the textile trade has any right to assert itself against the national interest, and it is for that reason that I value the concluding argument of my hon. Friend the Member for East Toxteth (Mr. Mond), in which he pointed out the vital interest to this country of a great, growing, developing and scientific chemical industry. The country cannot afford to allow this industry to go down simply for the sake of a few trivial points made on minor details by a section of the textile industry.
Then we have had no answer on the question of defence. If the Secretary of State for War replies, I can imagine that his Free Trade predilections will greatly outweigh his responsibility as the Minister of War. At all events we heard quoted, in support of the importance of the chemical industry from the point of view of defence, two people who do not always agree. I understand that Sir William Robertson makes the point that, as long as we have a Navy, Army and Air Force, it is essential for our security, and it will remain equally essential, that there should be an adequate body of trained organic chemists available if and when required. I hope the Government, who are spending over£100,000,000 on defence, which shows that they regard the possibility of war as a thing to be taken into account, will not ignore the position and the needs of the chemical industry and will not forget how much they affect the safety of the country.
I am able also to reconcile two people who have not always agreed. There has never been a better and more consistent Free Trader than Mr. Asquith. He said that the dependence of the country on a single foreign country for materials of such vital importance to industry, in which millions of our workpeople were employed, constituted a permanent danger. His words were "a permanent danger," not a 10-year danger, and he was speaking not from the war point of view, though it was in the War, but from the commercial point of view. A permanent danger cannot be covered by a 10-year
period. Then we come to a statement made on behalf of the Government of which the present Leader of the Liberal party was head that it was vital for the Government to safeguard this particular industry against the efforts which the great German dye-making firms were certain to make after the War to destroy all that we had accomplished. The President of the Board of Trade is a most guileless man. He sees no danger whatever. He cannot imagine that the Germans would do such a thing as to compete with us. He thinks they would form some happy alliance with us. Why should they do that when they have their own Government backing them and our Government does not back our dye industry?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: That is not my opinion. It is the opinion of people who have a life-long knowledge of the industry.

Major TRYON: We have had so many expressions of life-long conviction that I have quoted the opinion of Mr. Asquith when Prime Minister, and I have also succeeded in discovering the settled conviction of the present Leader of the Liberal party. I do not exactly know the duration of a settled condition within that party, but, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen spoke just now about the evils of a Government interfering with the trade of the country, that will not last 10 years. For he took the exactly opposite view on the Consumers' Council Bill.
I should like to recapitulate certain points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. CunliffeLister) which have not been answered in any way. They are that the industry was created originally by enterprise and invention in this country, but that it was transferred to Germany, because the Germans encourage industry by every means, not only by such things as import duties but also by subsidies to Universities that teach chemistry. We then come to the point where the industry was transferred hack to this country to some extent, when we had Government action. We next had a year of interregnum, when we began to lose the industry again, and now under the Act we have to a great extent regained it. The result of the Act may be summarised as follows: new
factories have been put up in this country, production has been increased six times as compared with pre-War, that 93 per cent by weight of the consumption of dyes is of British origin, whereas before the War only 20 per cent. was of British origin, and we have an expanding export trade.
We have heard a good deal of talk from the textile point of view about their desire to have new dyes at their disposal. The greatest case of anything of that sort happening was the case of acetate silk, when discoveries brought a whole new range of industry into this country and effective use was made of acetate silk for the first time. A committee reported that it was fully equal to that of any foreign manufacture and that there had been a steady improvement in the ranges and a marked advance in quality. All the five big discoveries in connection with it have been made in this country under the influence of this Act.
To allow the Act to lapse would be a grave mistake, particularly at the present time of general depression. I do not notice that there has been very much applause on the other side of the House of the speeches made in favour of the Act. If only the right hon. Gentleman had been speaking, not in the House of Commons but at Geneva, he would have received general applause from the foreign nations. I need hardly say that it is regarded by them as a splendid international act. I understand that an international act is one in which we give away everything and the other nations give away nothing.
Another, and a rather curious, point has come out in this debate. I am reminded of it by the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise). When we talk of tariffs in other connections they say that tariffs are old-fashioned, and that the right way to deal with dumped goods or with goods made by cheap labour is not by tariffs—this is the Labour argument—but by prohibition. They further say from the benches of the Labour party, and on platforms, "Do not have tariffs. It is better to have some arrangement under which you regulate imports." These are their arguments, and when we ask for help of some kind in connection with the steel trade,
we do not get it. It is astonishing that those who advocate prohibition and the regulation of imports should, when they find an example of this kind in force for dyes, then promptly proceed to destroy it. There is another vital consideration from the national point of view. I have read a. lecture by Professor Pope, who writes with extraordinary knowledge of science and not very much knowledge, I think, of the political views of the present Government, because he seems very doubtful as to what they are likely to do. He stresses the point, that under this Act, and only owing to this Act, we have built up a great staff of trained teachers. Young men go to the universities and for years devote their studies to chemistry. Opportunities for continuing those studies are provided by the chemical industry, and the dye industry gives an enormous amount of encouragement to these men.
I do not say for a moment that the benefit is confined to the dye industry. Many of these men have different tastes and they branch off into other forms of discovery. But just as the dye industry has benefited, so have a great number of other trades benefited. This training of young men for the chemical trade has enabled many men to branch out into other industries. At a time when so many great problems in industry are unsolved, and when we have a staff which has reached its most useful point owing to the fact that the work at the universities has been brought on as a result of the practical experience gained in industry, it seems a pity to break up this condition of things, and leave these men, many of them, to turn to some other business, and to injure not only the dyeing industry but also the textile industry, which must necessarily suffer if British dyes do not advance, and, after all, to set back this great exploration of the infinite field of undiscovered science. This is a voyage to which there is no end. As far as this particular ship is concerned, it is going to be wrecked by the present Government, and, if I may say so without personal discourtesy, wrecked by
the mildest mannered man that ever scuttled ship".

Mrs. HAMILTON: I must begin by rebutting with all the energy of which I am capable the charge which seems to
be levelled against the present Government and the Members of our party of being indifferent to the importance of science in industry and generally to scientific research. Nothing can be more wholly untrue or a more false description of our general attitude. I suggest, with all respect, that the speakers from the other side, including the right hon. Gentleman and the Member for East Toxteth (Mr. Mond) exaggerated the value of the work, important as it is, which has been done under the Dyestuffs Act, and in that are doing their case no good. They are trying to identify scientific research with a particular commercial experiment in a way which makes one doubt the disinterested character of their devotion to science. We fully accept the fact that a supply of really trained chemists and scientists is vital to the nation, and never more vital than at the present time. But we have a greater respect for what such a great institution as the Imperial Chemical Industries and other great industries and their Research Associations do, than to think that all the opportunities for scientific research are concentrated in one narrow department—that connected with work under the Dyestuffs Act. That is a fact which has really been so over stated that it has become almost ridiculous.
It is said that only by retaining this particular prohibition system are we going to get a supply of trained chemists. I think that such a description of the attitude of our whole country toward scientific research ought to be resented. It is not going to help us if outside this country the impression is created that our provision in regard to science and scientific work is governed by, and is to be concentrated in, the small section of our industry which is connected with dyeing. In that connection, I think that hon. Members ought to study with candour the paragraph in the report of the Development Committee which deals with this question, and which says in plain terms that there is evidence of lack of research of an original character in connection with the Dyestuffs Act. What they say, in paragraph 52, is:
There is some evidence, however, of lack of research of an original character, and this is exemplified in a minor degree by the absence of production of ancillary products for colour using industries.… The Committee view with alarm the fact that original
work in this development of dyeing technique is more vigorously and successfully attempted by foreign makers.
In general, this over-statement of the importance, great as it is, of dyes research does harm. For fundamental chemical research we have to rely upon our Universities, upon our Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and upon our research associations, and we want to strengthen that fundamental research.
I have listened attentively in this debate and I confess that I am a little in doubt as to whether the dyes industry is a really strong, efficient one or whether there is some concealed weakness in it which makes hon. Members opposite so apprehensive about its future. There is always a danger, when children are safeguarded and sheltered too long, they very often develop the fault of selfishness. Surely the time has come when the dyes industry can stand Ors its own feet and not selfishly claim protection at the expense of other great industries. I am taking part in this debate in order to put one point of view, namely, the point of view of the Lancashire cotton industry. It is evidently a subject of some resentment on the part of hon. Members opposite that on this matter both the employers and the workpeople in the Lancashire cotton industry do speak with one voice, and that voice is correctly represented by the action of the Government and by the view which we take on these benches. I want hon. Members to try to realise, if they can, what is the state of the Lancashire textile industry at the present time. You are dealing with the case of an industry in abnormal conditions. The Lancashire cotton industry at the moment is so stripped and bare that difficulties which, in ordinary circumstances, could be regarded as relatively insignificant, are very serious indeed. Its future depends literally on marginal considerations, on considerations which affect the marginal price.
From that point of view we have legitimately to regard any obstacles in the way of recovery with a degree of carefulness and accuracy which would not be necessary at other times. It is all very well to say from the administrative point of view that the difficulties connected with the licensing system are such as to be easily overcome. They do
—on this the report is clear—limit the access to a wide range of dyes and hamper that quick adaptation and swift use of novelties which are vital elements in the possibility for Lancashire of recovering markets, holding markets and re-establishing its workpeople in employment. In not one, but in a whole series of passages, the Committee pays tribute—and deserved tribute—to the degree to which the colour users, and, in particular, those connected with the textile industry have accepted the period of Parliamentary control connected with the establishment of this experiment. No one reading that document with any kind of realisation of what are the conditions over the whole area of Lancashire can help feeling the necessity of paying the greatest attention to those passages in the report to the sacrifices made in the past by Lancashire and the difficulties put in its way at the present time. Those difficulties are serious in themselves.
I would like very much to re-enforce the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) when he suggested that action in the direction now being taken by the Government is not only a practical and economic assistance, but a psychological assistance. Nothing will better serve to hearten the hard-pressed associations, both of workpeople and employers in Lancashire, than the knowledge that when they come to this House with a request which is practically unanimous from all those associations, the House does understand the extreme difficulties in which they are involved, and the extreme fortitude with which they are asking for a due and proper consideration of that request. I should be the very last to suggest that any sectional interest should be preferred at a time like this, or at any time, to the national interest. Lancashire does not ask in a selfish spirit for the removal of this Act. It asks for its removal entirely in a national interest. It accepts the view that just as the dye industry is very useful to the textile industry, we must take the other side of the picture and recognise that the textile industry is of vital importance to the dyeing industry. To a very large extent their prosperity is bound together. But a period of 10
years has now gone by, a period of sacrifices willingly made by Lancashire in what they believe to be the national interest, and we ought to look at the question from a broad, national point of view, and realise that we have a particular responsibility for the conditions in one of the greatest of our industries, which takes a view of this problem which is practically unanimous and will feel the endorsement of this House as an encouragement to it in its struggle with its difficulties.
I believe that, in taking that view, we are not disregarding, but rather considering the interest of the dye industry itself. We on this side of the Committee take the view expressed in the report and reinforced by many speakers that the dyes industry has now reached the position of such established strength that it does not require an artificial barrier round it. In this I beg the Committee to realise that I am not speaking with the feeble voice of one individual, but as a representative in this case of a very large body of opinion which covers the whole of the industrial area of the North affected by this question.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) is not in his place, because I have a few words to address to him. Having no definite views himself and, apparently, having to fill up the time, he had to seek out a passage from the remarks of someone who had definite views, in order to shield his own shakiness by putting before the Committee what he considered to be a. dangerous example.

Mr. G. GIBSON: What about your prophecy, which he read?

Mr. SHAW: I am coming to that. I am going to repeat it. I said in 1920 that, in my opinion, this Act would do a great deal of harm to the two principal industries in the textile trade. To that I still hold, and behind me I have the combined opinion of every representative man on the employers' side and the workmen's side in the two big industries of the textile trade, which are 50 times larger than the dye industry. If 50 times be not enough, I can go a little further, because in the one case there are 750,000 people employed and,
according to the report of the Dyestuffs Industry Development Committee, there are only 7,000 employed on the other side.
We had been pressing for definite provisos that if the guarantee of the removal of competition were given there should be inserted in the Act two things: (1) the guarantee that research would be made obligatory, and (2) that there should be limitation of profits. Neither of these conditions was consented to. What has been the result? In 1920, according to the Report, there were 7,632 people employed in the dye industry. To-day or, rather, in 1928, the last year of which there is a report, there were 7,209 employed. That. is the statement made in the OFFICIAL REPORT, showing that in 1920 there were 423 people more employed than there are to-day in the industry. Those who think that research has been specially attended to may like to hear the figures which I am about to give. In 1920, there were 594 of a technical staff, to-day there are 378. Of the research staff, full-time, there were in 1920 some 120, to-day the number is 105. There has been an increase in the research staff, part-time, from 25 to 28. The administrative staff has gone down from 1,075 to 740 but, fortunately, the works staff has increased by 140. The result is, that after 10 years of prohibition these figures show a less number working in the!industry than in 1920. I invite the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley to look at those figures and then ask himself whether my statement was entirely without justification.
Let me turn to some of the things that were said at the opening of the discussion to-day. We were told that the Germans had said: "Why do you wish to make dyes? There is no profit in them, and we can make them." It seems to be assumed that in some way the present dyestuff makers of this country are the opponents of the Germans, on patriotic grounds, and would never, never, never enter into an arrangement with them. The Committee ought to know that in 1924 there was a proposal made to bring about what was to all intents and purposes a merger between the dyestuff makers of this country and the Interressen-Gemeinschaft, and that the Government should withdraw their
holdings in order that that merger should be made. It was the Government of 1924 that would not relinquish the Government's holdings, so that the merger between our dyestuff makers and the German dyestuff makers should not take place. [Interruption.] I hope that these facts are not unpalatable. We were told, in effect, that there was no difficulty in getting dyes. We were told that the reduction in our exports had been mainly in grey goods. These are things which I am prepared to deal with on their merits, and to do so quite openly. Let me revert to history. I will not say a word about the extraordinary financial events that took place at that time. "Let the dead past bury its dead," so far as that is concerned. There were, however, such things during the time of the agitation as shares jumping up from a few shillings each to very many pounds. The Government put£1,700,000 into the concern and drew out£600,000. If it comes to a case of raking up old things, one can do it very effectively.
The curious thing is that in 1920 the Government of that day did not know that the real textile trade was the Lancashire cotton trade and the Yorkshire woollen trade, employing 750,000 people. These people were never even represented on the committee that was appointed to consider this question which so vitally affected them. Let me give a few extraordinary figures to show exactly the scope of these interests. In 1913, the Lancashire trade alone exported, apart altogether from its own consumption, cotton goods, containing colour, to the extent of 2,704,000,000 yards. In 1930, for the first 10 months, we exported 937,000,000 yards. These figures are very difficult to seize. Let me use an illustration to show what they mean. The cotton goods that were exported from Lancashire in 1913 would wrap round the world 62 times, and even this year so far the goods that we have exported would wrap round the whole globe 21 times. That is an industry that is placed opposite an industry which employs 7,200 people. If we have to choose between the two, if all other circumstances are equal, surely one would choose the industry which employs 750,000 people rather than the
industry which employs 7,000. On the top of that, there is the definite promise that this Measure was for 10 years and 10 years only. Lancashire has at last come to its own. It has found a Government that has realised that 500,000 people have a right to speak in a matter which concerns their livelihood. Lancashire has spoken. Both employers and employed state quite definitely that in their opinion this Act has been of great harm to Lancashire, and they ask that the promise made in 1920 that the Act should last for 10 years only should be kept. We are definitely keeping the promise which was made by a preceding Government.
Someone says, "Why not have an investigation?" Here, in my possession, is the Report of the investigation, drawn up by a Committee on which there was not a single direct representative of the two huge trades which I have mentioned, who from the beginning have been treated as if they did not belong to the textile trade, and whose interests have been neglected for the sake of a trade which, however important, is a mere fleabite in comparison. [Interruption.] I will say that it is like a grain of sand in comparison. I will say anything that the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) likes.
Let me deal with the report in order to show that even this Committee, without a single representative of the two great textile trades, whose interest it is very largely to maintain the present position of affairs, realises the position. Let us see what the report says about the position. I said in 1920 that in my opinon the two big textile industries would be penalised. The committee says, quite definitely, that the users have been subjected to certain disadvantages, and every disadvantage that the dyestuffs user suffers is more than felt by the actual producer of the goods. The report says:
Users have been subjected to serious technical handicaps in obtaining their complete requirements. The importation of dye-stuffs is definitely prohibited by the Act, hut under the system operated by the Licensing Committee, users are entitled by licence to import such colours as are necessary for their industry, and are not made in Great Britain. Despite the close co-operation between the users, the makers and
the Licensing Committee, the users undoubtedly have had difficulties, which may be classified under the following general terms:

(1) Interference with the ability to obtain supplies of dye-stuffs of proved quality.
(2) Limitation of access to developments and improvements in the world's market."

8.0 p.m.
What effect has that upon the cotton textile trade? One hon. Member quoted, forsooth, as an argument against the Government that textile goods from Germany were sold in Denmark in preference to our own, because the Germans were three or four weeks in advance with the novelties of dyes of German manufacture. This Act has prevented our people from getting access to those dyes. The report says, quite plainly and definitely, over and over again, that it has been difficult to get novelties and that it has been difficult to get these things quickly. I would ask anyone in this House who wears a dyed cotton garment of any kind whether, if he or she went into a shop and saw two pieces of cloth, one an old-style cloth and the other dyed with a novelty, with a guarantee of fastness of colour, whether he or she would not at once take up the novelty? [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Then, if people like old-fashioned stuff, there is no need for this Act. The fact is that people like these novelties. The worst of it is that. our competitors in the East have begun not. where we begun but they have begun ahead of us. I have been in the East and I have seen German machines using German dyes in order to cut us out of the market. It is about time that in this country we had the same quick access to these novelties and the same quick access to improvements as any other country, in order that. we may take the cream from the market and not. leave it to the German, the Ian or the Chinaman. To put it. bluntly, that is what has been going on. The cream of the market has been taken, and we have been left with the skimmed milk, and the result is that we have built up a dye industry employing 7,000 people. That has been done by the splendid effort of this Act! When I heard of what had been done T asked myself whether I had read the figures correctly, and I went to my friends, some of whom know this subject as well as I do myself. [Laughter.] Yes, I have had the advan-
vantage of working 21 years in the mills, and of working all my life in the cotton textile industry, and I think I may say without egotism that I know it better than most hon. Members in this House. I have seen textile workers at work in probably more countries than any other hon. Member, and I know what I am talking about when I speak about the textile trade. It may be that the late Government did not know that it was the textile trade, but my argument is that it is the textile trade. It is a good trade, the largest exporting trade in the country, and it is entitled to consideration, and amateur and immature experiments in tariffs ought not to be applied to it.
Then the Committee went on to say:
The production of the desired effects frequently involves numerous processes,
and they ended the paragraph by saying that, after everything had been considered,
To that extent, therefore, there has been throughout the period of the Act considerable interference with the users' ability to obtain supplies of dyestuffs of proved quality.
In addition to that, they said that not only was the onus of proof imposed on the makers, but in actual practice it has been transferred to the consumer. This is from the report on page 34, paragraph 106, and, if any hon. Member wants to consult the report, he can do it. Then I invite the attention of the Committee to another paragraph in the same report:
which says:
It seems to have been the rule for applications for licences for new material to be held up until the makers had reported upon them, and in the using industries, where novelty is of the utmost importance, any impediment to the flow of the newer products is a serious handicap to the development of their export business.
Is not that clear proof that there has been interference with trade? Take the question of colour. If there has been any method of dyeing adopted by any country which, by virtue of its excellence or novelty, has forced its way into the markets of the world, would it not be simply suicide for us not to take advantage of it? In the textile trade, the dye maker bears practically the same relation to the textile trade that the maker of blacking bears to the hoot trade. It is absolutely essential that our makers of
wool or cotton should have the closest access to all places where novelties are made. On page 36, the report says:
The dye-making industry of Great Britain, whilst it is well established, does not however provide for the full need of the colour-using industry, and users are dependent upon foreign suppliers for special colours and novelties. It would be a serious blow to British users, were the flow of these products to be impaired in any way.
They have already said that the flow is impaired and very difficult to keep going; they then call attention to the gravity of the effect if the flow is impaired.
That is the state of things under the Act at present. I do not care very much for the academic position, either of Free Trade or of Tariff Reform. I am a Free Trader because i believe that Free Trade is the better system, but, if I felt that the continuance of this Act meant a serious addition to the efficiency of our country, no amount of doctrinal faith would stop me from supporting it. This Act, however, is injuring industry, and no one can tell the harm which it has done to Lancashire and Yorkshire. That harm is increasing, and it is not merely by accident that our exports have fallen from the figures I have given to the figures of this year. I am not going to claim that the Dyestuffs Act has been the sole cause of all this, nor even the principal cause, but that it is a cause which is responsible for more unemployment than the total number of people employed in the dye industry I am firmly and absolutely convinced. Every man in Lancashire, either on the operatives' or the employers' side, who has given study to this subject wit/ agree with me in that expression. Here is a telegram which has just been handed to me from the workers' organisation in Lancashire. We have already had the views of the employers' organisation. This body represents some 300,000 of the organised workers in Lancashire, and I ask that their views should be heard at least equally with those of the 7,000 persons in the dye industry. The telegram says:
The Textile Factory Workers' Association view with alarm that any doubt as to the necessity for the lapsing of the Dyestuffs Act should exist, and trust that all Lancashire members will support the Government's proposal.—Boothman.
He is the secretary of the Amalgamated Spinners, and treasurer of the joint organisation of the textile workers in Lancashire.

Mr. REMER: Does he use any dyes?

Mr. SHAW: The organisation which this gentleman represents makes more textile goods in one week than the hon. Gentleman's constituents make in one century.

Mr. REMER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that in my constituency there is more dye used on cotton goods than in any constituency in England.

Mr. SHAW: Whatever dye there is used on cotton goods I am interested in the getting rid of the cotton goods and the selling of them, because on that great industry depends the happiness of pretty well the whole of the county of Lancashire and the fringes of the adjacent county, while its influence on the rest of the industry in this country is simply enormous. I ask the hon. Member to think of the position of an hon. Member like myself, who has spent practically all his life in the mill or among the workers, and who sees a state of things which gets worse and worse. I happen to have been born in a town, where I have lived all my life, and which gave its name to the agreement between employers and employed for the weaving of coloured goods. I know as much about. this arrangement as anybody. I have seen my town's trade dwindle and dwindle. I have seen where a lot of it has gone, and I have seen German goods used with German dyes for the production of goods in other countries in competition with my own people. I am more interested in my own people than in anybody else: than in a German, an Indian, a Chinaman or a Jap.
The fact is that there are three things concerned in this matter. The most important is: Are we carrying out the promise which we made? The second is: If we do carry it out, will the dyestuffs industry die? The third is: If we allow the Act to lapse will more good than harm be done? In the first case, if what has been stated on behalf of the dyeing industry be true, there will be no danger. It says: "We can manu-
facture equally with anybody else and as cheaply as anybody else." In reply to the question, "If we carry out the promise will the industry die?" I say, "Certainly not." In reply to the third point, unquestionably we shall do more good than harm, because a ready access to dyes of the best quality and to novelties will put more men into work in the textile trade than there is any danger of putting out of work in the dyeing trade.
Finally, I appeal to the House to remember that the circumstances which existed at the passing of this Act are not the circumstances of to-day. People say that if the abolition of the Act results in loss of the industry it will mean a serious menace in case another war should happen. There is no hon. Member in the House who is against any reasonable expenditure of money on any research work that may be needed to guarantee the country's security, but do not make your research out of the bones of my people in Lancashire. If you want research to guard the country against danger, pay for it; do not adopt methods that will keep my people out of work. If you want technicians—I have already shown from the figures how you are not getting them—train them.
The burden of the song has been that Germany can beat us because of her extremely fine technical colleges and universities. Very well, set them up; but every proposal we make for an advanced education is opposed by hon. Members opposite. If you want a fair and square deal give ear to those who have suffered for 10 long years, without ever being consulted or without their interests being thoroughly considered. If it be the case that, as the result of the passing of this Act into the limbo of forgotten things, any country should deliberately attempt under licence to smash the market, there is no Government in England, either Liberal, Conservative or Labour, that would not take action in a case like that. But there is no proof that anything of the kind will take place. That is not the danger. The danger has been quite plainly pointed out, and it will exist if this Act is continued. The danger is that the dye-making in this country is in private hands and there is nothing to prevent them coming to an agreement with other
nations, and probably we shall see before long a ring formed;n which the dyestuff makers will delimit their territories, and all people using dyestuffs will be squeezed. We have nothing to regret, we have nothing of which we need be ashamed. We are going to let the Act lapse in accordance with a political promise. For once a political promise

shall be kept. We who did riot make the promise will keep it; hon. Members opposite who did, now want to break it. I leave the verdict with the Committee.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 255.

Division No. 52.]
AYES.
[8.17 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Locker-Lampson, Corn. O.(Handsw'th)


Albery, Irving James
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Dixey, A. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Duckworth. G. A. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Astor, Viscountess
Eden, Captain Anthony
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Atholl, Duchess of
Edge, Sir William
Meller, R. J.


Atkinson, C.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Ballile-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
England, Colonel A.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-S.-M.)
Mond, Hon. Henry


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Balniel, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Beaumont, M. W.
Ferguson, Sir John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Bellairs. Commander Carlyon
Fermoy, Lord
Muirhead, A. J.


Berry, Sir George
Fielden, E. B.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'Id)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otrey)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gilmour, Lt.-CoL Rt. Hon. Sir John
O'Neill, Sir H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Peake, Captain Osbert


Boyce, H. L.
Grace, John
Penny, Sir George


Bracken, B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pato, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Power, Sir John Cecil


Briscoe, Richard George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Grentell Edward C. (City of London)
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Purbrick, R.


Buchan, John
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Remer, John R.


Butler, R. A.
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Cadogan. Major Hon. Edward
Hammersley, S. S.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Campbell, E. T.
Hanbury, C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Harbord, A.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cayzer. Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hartington, Marquess of
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ruggles-Brise, Lleut.-Colonel E. A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Salmon, Major I.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Christie, J. A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon.Sir S. J. G.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Savery, S. S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard-Bury. Colonel C. K.
Simms, Major-General J.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Wlthington)


Cohan, Major J. Brunel
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Simon, Rt. Hon, Sir John


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hurd, Percy A.
Smlthers, Waldron


Colman, N. C. D.
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colville, Major D. J.
KIndersley, Major G. M.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cowan, D. M.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gelnsbro)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Liewellin, Major J. J.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Thomson, Sir F.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, W. J.


Todd, Capt. A. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wells, Sydney R.
Worthington-Evans,Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Withers, Sir John James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Warrender, Sir Victor
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Commander Sir B. Eyres Monsell and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES


Adamson, Rt. Han. W. (Fife, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Matters, L. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, Thomas E.
Messer, Fred


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grundy, Thomas W.
Middleton, G.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Millar, J. D.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Milner, Major J.


Alpass, J. H.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blaokburn)
Montague, Frederick


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Angell, Norman
Hardie, George D.
Morley, Ralph


Arnott, John
Harris. Percy A.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Ayles, Walter
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Barnes, Alfred John
Haycock, A. W.
Mort, D. L.


Barr, James
Hayes, John Henry
Moses, J. J. H.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Muff, G.


Bellamy, Albert
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Naylor, T. E.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Benson, G.
Herriotts, J.
Noel Baker, P. J.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Noel-Buxton. Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Bevan, Aneurla (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oldfield, J. R.


Blrkett, W. Norman
Hoffman, P. C.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hopkin, Daniel
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Bowen, J. W.
Hudson. James H. (Huddersfield)
Palin, John Henry.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Palmer, E. T.


Broad, Francis Alfred
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Perry. S. F.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Johnston, Thomas
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Bromfield, William
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bromley, J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Left (Camborne)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Brooke, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Brothers, M.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Pole, Major D. G.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Potts, John S.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jowett, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Price, M. P.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Kelly, W. T.
Qulbell, D. J. K.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Rathbone, Eleanor


Burgess, F. G.
Kinley, J.
Raynes, W. R.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Kirkwood, D.
Richards, R.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Knight, Holford
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cameron, A. G.
Lang, Gordon
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ritson, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Lathan, G.
Romeril, H. G.


Chater, Daniel
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Clarke, J. S.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Rowson, Guy


Cluse, W, S.
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Sanders, W. S.


Cove, William G.
Lowther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sandharn, E.


Dagger, George
Leach, W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Dallas, George
Lees, J.
Scott, James


Dalton, Hugh
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sexton, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Day, Harry
Logan, David Gilbert
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Longbottom, A. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Duncan, Charles
Longden, F.
Sherwood. G. H.


Ede, James Chuter
Lowth, Thomas
Shield, George William


Edmunds, J. E.
Lunn, William
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shillaker, J. F.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shinwell, E.


Freeman, Peter
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McElwee, A.
Simmons, C. J.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sinkinson, George


Gibbing, Joseph
McKinlay, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Gibson, H. M. (Lance, Moseley)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gill, T. H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)


Glassey, A. E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gossling, A. G.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Kelghley)


Gould, F.
Mander. Geoffrey le M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mansfield, W.
Smith. Tom (Pontefract)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marcus, M.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Granville, E.
Markham. S. F.
Snell, Harry


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Marley, J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marshall, Fred
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middfesbro' W.)
Mathers, George
Sorensen, R.




Stamford, Thomas W.
Vlant, S. P.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Stephen, Campbell
Walkden, A. G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Stewart, J. (St. Rollex)
Walker, J.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llenelly)


Strauss, G. R.
Wallace, H. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sullivan, J.
Wellhead, Richard C.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sutton, J. E.
Watkins, F. C.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S W.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wellock, Wilfred
Winterton, G. E.(Lelcester,Loughb'gh)


Tinker, John Joseph
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Toole, Joseph
Welsh, James C. (Coatbrldge)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Tout, W. J.
West, F, R.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Townend, A. E.
Westwood, Joseph



Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
White, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Vaughan, D. J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL.THOMSON: I gather that we have reached an understanding that the remainder of the Committee stage of this Bill is not to be unduly protracted, and I rise merely for the purpose of repeating a suggestion which was made in the course of the proceedings on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill of last year and which, at that time, was regarded as reasonable by the representatives of the Government. Year after year we are presented with an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill with a very long Schedule embodying a dozen or more Acts of Parliament which it is proposed to continue for a further year. It is a matter of great difficulty and considerable research to discover what these Acts are about and even when that has been ascertained, one does not know the reasons why it is desired to continue them.
Last year I suggested that, along with the Bill, there should be issued a White Paper showing precisely and, in short form, the effect of each Act and why the Department which recommended its continuance desired that it should be continued. That suggestion has been made by successive Select Committees. I regret that the Government have not been able to carry out the proposal in connection with the present Bill, but I now repeat it in the hope that it will be considered favourably by the Government and handed to the Departments concerned for future reference. While I am on the subject, perhaps I may ask Whether it is intended this year to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into these Acts which it is proposed to continue. It has become the practice that every three years a Select Committee should go through the list of expiring laws. The last Committee was
appointed in 1928, and in the ordinary course of events there should be such a Committee in 1931. Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell us if the Government propose to appoint such a Committee.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I quite appreciate the point put by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the White Paper. I have not forgotten that that question was raised last year. I have given careful consideration to the proposal, but I think that the situation has been considerably modified by the steady reduction in the number of Bills covered by this Measure. Only 10 years ago as many as 40 Acts were included in the Expiring Laws Bill of the year, and even as recently as last year, 21 Acts were continued in this way. In the current year there are only 15. It seemed to me that, in those circumstances, there was not much advantage in producing a White Paper such as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. Another consideration affected me in this matter. It seemed to me that such a White Paper would either have to be quite short, in which case it would not give any information which could not be obtained by hon. Members themselves and it might be misleading, or, on the other hand, if it were very long, it would anticipate the discussion in the House of Commons. I did say at the time when the proposal was made that it was not unreasonable, but, having given it the most careful consideration, I feel that it would be unnecessary in the present circumstances. With regard to the Select Committee, I do not wish to give any promise at the present time and I think it will be sufficient to say that we will look into that matter.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I think that in the interests of the House the hon. Gentleman might be respectfully requested
to reconsider the matter and give us some more definite assurance. It is understood that every three years there should be a Select Committee appointed to look into the Acts incorporated in this Bill and to examine them in a way which is not possible to a Committee of the Whole House. I am surprised that the Financial Secretary has not found himself able to state immediately, that now, after a lapse of three years, such a Committee is to be appointed. He has not mentioned any objection to that course, and I cannot conceive any. I hope, that before we leave Clause 1, he will be able to give us some further assurance on this matter. It is one which, I am sure, Members of every party would desire to press upon whatever Government happens to be in office.
As regards the White Paper, I do not think that the number of Acts included in the Bill affects the principle at all. It would be for the convenience of hon. Members that there should be an adequate summary of the kind suggested. Whether that summary is to be short or long is really a matter for the draftsman. Again, the hon. Gentleman did not say what the objections to this course were, and I do not think any of us will accept the suggestion that it is beyond the wit of any Minister or any Parliamentary draftsman to place before the House an adequate explanation in a reasonably short form of the proposals of this Bill. Surely the hon. Gentleman would be the last to suggest that it is not possible for that to be done.
I went to the trouble, because it was a matter of interest to me, to see exactly what was meant by the various Acts mentioned in the Schedule, and for a good many of them there is a reasonable explanation, so that the Government would only have to explain them in three, five, or 10 lines, and that would he the end of the matter. Any Government of the day, if they did that, so far from increasing debate, might save themselves a good deal of discussion, and I therefore hope the hon. Member will not find it impossible to furnish a proper White Paper within reasonable dimensions. I am very glad that the number of Acts put into the Bill has decreased, but there are many technical matters men-
tioned in this Bill about which it would be useful to have some information.
I therefore press upon the Financial Secretary to assure the Committee that he will give further consideration to this matter, and not content himself by saying it is an impossibility to issue a White Paper of such reasonable dimensions as will give a satisfactory explanation of the Acts contained in the Bill. I think, further, that he should give an undertaking to-night—and we must press upon him to do so, because hon. Members opposite may find themselves in a different position to-morrow or whenever it may be—that there shall be a Select Committee of the House to go into this question every three years. This method of continuing legislation is not a satisfactory way of dealing with many of the Acts at present on the Statute Book, but it may be necessary. In any case, I think we ought to have a Committee every three years to look into the question and issue their report to the House. I know the hon. Gentleman wants to meet the wishes of the Committee, and he cannot, I submit, very well leave the matter as it is

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman was not more amenable with regard to this question of a White Paper, but I should like to make a suggestion to him, in ease he may be in charge of another Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. However remote that possibility may be, in case it should happen, if he still intends to refuse a White Paper, I want. to suggest a possible alternative, and that is that there should be attached to the Bill a memorandum setting out quite shortly the effect of the Acts included in the Schedule. Perhaps I may be forgiven for quoting the case of a Bill which I had the honour and privilege of conducting through this House four years ago, a Bill which, among other things, repealed some seven or eight old Acts of Parliament. In that case a memorandum on the front of the Bill set out quite shortly the effect of every one of the Acts which it was proposed to repeal, and I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman will not issue a White Paper, he might at least attach such a memorandum to the Bill.
I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say that a White Paper might be misleading. I do not attach much importance to that
argument. These White Papers are, of course, prepared in the Departments by people who are extraordinarily efficient, and who, I am sure everybody in this House would agree, are extraordinarily fair and impartial. Therefore, a White Paper would not in the least be likely to be intentionally misleading. No doubt a memorandum attached to the Bill would not carry the same weight and would not be regarded as a document of the same importance as a White Paper, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it would be difficult to supply a White Paper which would be reasonably short and at the same time not open to the objection of being possibly misleading through its brevity, that would not be a valid objection to a memorandum attached to the Bill. On whichever side of the House we might sit, those of us who were in opposition at the time would no doubt be able to make up our own minds as to how far a memorandum prepared by the Government in charge of a Bill was likely to be misleading, but at any rate such a memorandum, setting out shortly what the Acts did which were included in the Bill, would be of very great use to hon. Members and would be likely to make the discussion of the Bill much more effective.
May I also re-enforce what has been said in regard to a Select Committee? There again I think that in these days, when the House of Commons is sometimes a rather unwieldy body to deal with matters of this kind, it is of the greatest assistance in the effective working of the Parliamentary machine that we should make use of Committees of that kind, and I sincerely hope that next year, whatever Government may be in charge of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill will see that we have a Select Committee to go into this question.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I was very surprised to hear the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, because he rather conveyed the impression that he had not had an opportunity of, or had missed, consulting with his staff as to what was the position with regard to a Select Committee. I am not going to do anything to obstruct this Bill, but on two occasions when I was in charge of a. similar Bill, in 1928 and 1929, I remember being asked several times whether we were going to have a Select Committee again tin 1931, and if
my memory does not mislead me, I said that without a doubt it was understood that we should have such a committee in 1931, being three years after 1928. I therefore feel that the Financial Secretary has either not informed himself or is under a misapprehension.
I think it has always been the intention of the Treasury to have a Select Committee, which, as I remember it, was not for the purpose of saying whether or not an Act should continue. It was set up for the purpose of saying for how many years the temporary Acts should be continued. It is very easy to get these Acts looked into. No question of policy is involved, but the House of Commons is anxious to know exactly where it stands in these matters. My right hon. Friend asked the Financial Secretary last year whether he would consider issuing to the House a friendly, informative document to save the House time, so that we might know what the Acts, which it was proposed to extend, referred to. I also referred to it in a speech. The hon. Gentleman did not give an undertaking that he would supply a memorandum, but he said that he would look into it and consider it because, he thought., that it was a reasonable request. Judging from his answer to-night, he appears to have gone back on that view, and I would like him to tell us whether he has considered the proposal again since we raised it in last year's debate.
We do not ask for a long involved memorandum. I remember a memorandum which was issued to the Select Committee in 1928 by Mr. Granville Ram. I have a copy of it here. It is not a long verbose document, for it runs to only 4½pages. It deals with one item which comes in this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and in the course of six or eight lines it says:
Scottish Office desire the annual continuance, because a plague of grey seals on the coasts of Scotland has been complained of and is now being investigated, and the best way of meeting such an event is to be in a position to let the Act expire if necessary, at the end of a year: Ministry of Agriculture concur.
Such a form of explanation would save us a great deal of time on various items in the Schedule, and we should have something which would give us an opportunity of knowing what the Acts referred to were about. There is a certain item in
this present Bill dealing with an Act which has been renewed on various occasions, and has been going on for 16 years. Clearly, we should feel no particular anxiety about that item if there had been a memorandum to-day, and our minds would have been put at rest with regard to other things which give rise to doubt. I do not know why this Act, which I cannot now discuss, is in this Schedule, for a Bill dealing with it must come to the House sooner or later, and I ask why it has been included at all. Had the Financial Secretary given us a Memorandum of the type which I have in mind I should have been able to pass over that item without any doubt, and so save the time of the hon. Gentleman and of the Committee. Yet here we have an item in the Schedule without any explanation, while we know that the Government intend to bring down a Bill to vary this Act. For the convenience of the Financial Secretary and of the Committee, the hon. Gentleman would be well-advised to say that he will undertake to produce year by year some kind of short resume of the reasons for the various Acts being put in, so that the time of the Committee may he saved.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I appreciate the spirit of the remarks that have been made, and careful attention will be given to the points that have been put forward.

Clause 2 [Short title and Application to Northern Ireland], ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — SCHEDULE.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 10 to 16.
This refers to the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904. The last thing I desire is to omit this Act from the Schedule, but Parliamentary form makes it necessary that I should move its omission in order to raise questions about it. Upon this Act hang the whole powers of the Postmaster-General for the regulation of traffic in the ether. On the continuance of this Act depends the whole system of wireless telegraphy, the whole of broadcasting,
and all the other developments of wireless traffic. If this Act were repealed, the result would be chaos. This is one of the two Parliamentary opportunities in the year for a short review of matters connected with wireless in general, and I propose, therefore, to give the Postmaster-General one of those all too rare opportunities of giving the Committee a little information on the subject. I can most usefully do so if I ask him one or two questions about matters of general interest.
I would like him to tell us the position with regard to beam telephony with the Dominions, and the progress of the services, and the development of this form of communication. I should like him to tell us the state of development of Trans-Atlantic wireless. I understand that there has recently been opened yet another low-wave channel, and perhaps he will tell us within broad limits how the traffics are going generally, whether they are up to expectations and whether he is satisfied with the development of the service. The Committee will also be interested if he can tell us about the progress in the development of television and the experimental transmissions which have been made by the British Broadcasting Corporation. I remember well the first experiment, and when, not without some doubts, it was decided to allow the British Broadcasting Corporation to start experiments of this character. The Committee would be interested, and I am sure that the nation would be interested, to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say in regard to development in this direction. I am not going at the present moment. into the question of grand opera, for I am afraid that it. would not be in order upon this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not in order.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I bow to your Ruling at once. It would pass the wit of Parliamentary ingenuity to avoid making some side references to it, but of course, should this proposal mature in the form of a Supplementary Estimate—though I have some doubts that it will mature—we shall have a direct discussion on it, and I hope a direct expression of opinion by the Committee of
Supply. There are some questions with regard to the international work of the British Broadcasting Corporation which I should like to put.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be raising questions with which this Act is not concerned. This is an Act to deal with licences for wireless telegraphy.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is quite true. I ought to make it plain that the British Broadcasting Corporation can only operate under licence from the Postmaster-General, which is granted by him under the powers conferred upon him by this Act. Should the House refuse to re-enact this Act the licence of the Postmaster-General to the British Broadcasting Corporation would lapse, the whole of our control over 'aerial traffic would collapse, and there would be a state of chaos in the ether. Anybody would be at liberty to broadcast anything at any time. A number of complaints, more particularly from the East and South-East of England, have been brought to my notice lately with reference to interference caused by certain international stations not keeping to their assigned international wave-lengths. It is perhaps invidious to name offenders, but I am told that Stuttgart has been notorious and that the powerful new German station which has just been opened is possibly causing such disturbance in the South-East of England that people there arc unable to get the transmissions from 2 LO. There is an international body which deals with these affairs 'and an international congress which decides wave-lengths, and we should like to know that the right hon. Gentleman is taking all the appropriate steps with these international authorities to secure that these stations shall keep to their assigned wave-lengths and so reduce as far as possible the inconvenience which has been caused.
I would like to think that the right hon. Gentleman had some powers to deal with the broadcasts from Moscow. I confess that I am not very sure whether he has any powers, either national or international. I must say there seems to have been a. certain lack of liaison between the Foreign Office and the Post Office on the occasion of the Last broadcast from Moscow. The Foreign Secretary said that
the transcript of the last Moscow broadcast was not brought to his notice until one o'clock in the afternoon, whereas transmission had taken place at 10 o'clock the previous evening. We are threatened with another emanation from the same quarter on the 9th December, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should make arrangements on that occasion for very close liaison with the Foreign Office, and ensure that at the very earliest moment a verbatim report of what has been said from that quarter will be available. I do not want to ask too many questions, but I have one other to put, and that is as to how the programme of construction of regional stations is getting on, whether all the locations have been precisely determined and when it is expected that they will be opened.

Commander SOUTHBY rose—

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lees-Smith!

9.0 p.m.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr.Lees-Smith): If the hon. and gallant Member will permit me, I think it would he best if I were to answer first, while the questions are fresh in my mind, the points put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir. W. Mitchell-Thomson), and later I will be glad to deal with any others that he himself may raise. I will take the right hon. Gentleman's questions in their inverse order, and though I may not be able to give him all the information that he requires I will give him all that is in my possession at the moment. He asks what is our position with regard to the wireless messages broadcast from Moscow and whether we have any powers of interference. When the Washington International Radio Conference was held some years ago Russia was not invited to attend it—not, I think, because of the action of the British Post Office— and as a result Russia maintained that she was not bound by any international regulations regarding wave-lengths and could select those which were most convenient to herself. She selected, therefore, certain wave-lengths which were highly inconvenient to other nations. At the last broadcast conference, which was held during the term of office of my right hon. Friend opposite, Russia was invited to attend, and when there Russia insisted that white she would come into
a general international arrangement, certain wave-lengths which she would not have been allowed by the ordinary process but which she had been accustomed to operate during her period of freedom should still be permitted. I cannot say that her proposal was exactly accepted, but it was not rejected; and the result is that she is now to some extent working within the general system of regulations regarding wave-lengths but has, in addition, certain wave-lengths which she has been accustomed to operate before the conference, and it is on one of these wave-lengths that she is transmitting messages to this country.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: On 1,350.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Yes, that is right. That is quite outside the ordinary English wave-length, which is on the band from 200 to 500, but it is, I think, rather near the actual wave-length of Daventry. On certain nights, for weeks past, she has been regularly transmitting messages to this country. As the right hon. Gentleman has made one or two suggestions as to liaison between the Foreign Office and the Post Office, I may say that it is now a good many months since I began to take some interest in these messages from Russia and instructed the officials of the Post Office to go to our station at St. Albans—

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot quite see how these observations can arise on a Bill dealing with licensing regulations.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I think I can explain that what I am saying is in order. As a matter of fact, it continues discussions which occupied us last year. Under our licence we have to deal with wave lengths. There are certain international regulations regarding wave lengths and it is a. question whether Moscow is or is not acting within those regulations.

The CHAIRMAN: But the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with messages from Moscow.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am dealing with the fact that those messages came by wave-lengths which did not come under the international regulations, and I am explaining what steps I have taken to ascertain how far the Russian station
was within the regulations and was interfering with our wave-lengths. I asked my officials some months ago to investigate the matter, and they did so for some time, but the messages were exceedingly uninteresting, and for that reason exceedingly innocuous. Their character has now changed and the process will begin again. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thompson) asked a question with regard to the interference of several stations in Germany. He mentioned the Stuttgart broadcasting station, and asked whether they were observing international regulations. The position in regard to Stuttgart is that they are observing international regulations but their wavelengths happen to be very close to the London wave-length. They did not cause any difficulty until quite lately when the power of the Stuttgart station was increased, with the result that interference has occurred very frequently. In regard to the difficulty with the German broadcasting stations, we are endeavouring to persuade them to accept another wavelength, but this can only be carried through by further negotiations, and that is what we are doing at present.
As to the position of television, when I first took up office I found that the situation had matured for certain action on my part. Certain arrangements between the Baird Company and the British Broadcasting Company were in progress, with the result that the Baird Company were given the right of sending television pictures and voice production for half-an-hour six times a week outside the broadcasting hours, and from twelve to half-past at night on three days a week. They used two wave-lengths, one for speech and one for vision, arid the experiment at present is proceeding along those lines. As far as I know, both parties are satisfied with the experiment, and no complaints have been made to me.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon has asked me to make a general statement on the position of trans-Atlantic telephony. One cannot deal with these subjects without referring to what is happening at the broadcasting station at Rugby. Very few people are aware that we possess at Rugby the largest and most powerful wireless station in the world. The trans-Atlantic service is established between
London and New York, and it is now open for 21 hours a day. It works on four wave-lengths, one long wave and three short wave-lengths. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon has already mentioned, one more of these short wave-lengths has been introduced, and we anticipate that another long wave-length will be introduced in about two years. The service at the present time carries between 300 and 600 messages in a week, and it is undoubtedly the greatest commercial service in the world. The Rugby station also possesses a great telegraphic broadcasting service, but this is largely used for strategic purposes. As the Committee is aware, in time of war it is necessary to be able to communicate with our shipping all over the world, and our broadcasting station is able to get in touch with every ship anywhere on the seas.
I have also been asked a question about the development of our telephonic service to the Dominions. I have already explained that I am dealing with telephone services and not with telegraphic services. The first Dominion service to Australia was opened some months ago by a conversation between the British Prime Minister and Mr. Scullin, the Prime Minister of Australia. I should like to mention that during the recent Imperial Conference this service was of great value to Mr. Scullin because it enabled him to keep in touch with the Australian Cabinet, and before he lets for Australia he sent a letter to the Post Office expressing his very great gratitude for the help and the usefulness of the telephone service to Australia. In the case of New Zealand—

The CHAIRMAN: think the Post-master-General will understand that this discussion places me in some difficulty. I can find nothing in this Act about New Zealand.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I may perhaps explain that this discussion is covering ground which has been covered in the debates on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill for several years past—

The CHAIRMAN: I find that the Sections of this Act relate to licenoes—for instance, licences for wireless telephones,
licences for experimental purposes, and so on—but it seems to me that we are now having a Post Office discussion on this Bill.

Commander SOUTHBY: May I say that I have here a quotation from the Act in question, which says:
A person shall not establish any wireless telegraphy station or instal or work any apparatus for wireless telegraphy in any place on board a British ship except under and in accordance with a licence granting that power from the Postmaster-General,
Surely, therefore, the working of wireless communication between this country and, for example, New Zealand, would be the direct concern of the Postmaster-General, and would come under the Act of]904.

The CHAIRMAN: That subject, surely, is one for the Post Office Estimates on the appropriate occasion. This Act deals entirely with licensing.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I say, in order to make the matter clear to you and to the Committee, that, if it were not for this Act, it would be impossible to have any wireless service anywhere in the world, and it is only because there is inherent in the Postmaster-General, through this Act, the power of licensing, and so of regulating, wireless traffic, that it is possible to work any wireless service anywhere. For that reason, it has always been held, and indeed it was specifically said at one time—I remember saying it myself—that it was intended that the Act should be renewed from year to year in order to provide the House of Commons with this opportunity for discussion; otherwise, it would have been made a permanent Act. This is one of the opportunities which have been designedly left to the House of Commons in order that these matters may be reviewed.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that if I were to extend that principle to all of these Acts the discussion would have a very wide scope. Moreover, this particular Act deals simply with the granting of licences. I quite agree that if:t were not to remain in operation the Post. master-General would not have certain powers, but the powers of the PosmasterGeneral are discussed on the Post Office Vote.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I point out, with all respect, that if anyone attempted to discuss matters such as this on the Post Office Vote he would at once be ruled out of order by the Chain, because it would be said that he was dealing with legislation? This, therefore, is the only occasion upon which we can deal with the exercise of the Postmaster-General's powers under legislation.

Mr. HARDIE: May I ask if there is any licence existing between say, New Zealand and this country, or between Australia and New Zealand?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN: My difficulty is that the discussion is so wide.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: All that I propose to do is to give a short explanation of the wireless services between this country and the Dominions. That will, I think, cover the ground which the right hon Gentleman opened up. As to the position of New Zealand, we were not able to open a service with New Zealand at the same time that we opened the service to Australia, because New Zealand had not a station which could work to us. New Zealand, however, has lately built a station, and only a few days ago was able to work to Australia. It has not yet a station in our direction, and cannot work to us direct, but, now that there is a station in New Zealand, we are making arrangements by which we shall be able to communicate with New Zealand by switching through from Australia, and L hope that in a few weeks a service to New Zealand will be open.
Canada has been discussing a service for some months. The Post Office felt it to be its duty to point out to Canada that the existing service via New York provided her with the best and most reliable service in the world, but we expressed our willingness, if Canada wished for a direct service, to open one for her. She has expressed that wish, and a direct service between this country and Canada will be opened within the next two or three months.
In the case of South Africa no service is at present in immediate sight. That is not because the Post Office here is not ready, but because the South African station is not yet equipped. As the right
hon. Gentleman knows, South Africa has had a station under a private company in Capetown, but the South African Government have now decided to equip a station of their own in Johannesburg. That station is not yet built, and of course, until it is built, no service can be established.
In the case of India, again, the British Post Office is ready, but many arrangements have yet to be made in India. The Indian Government is endeavouring to make arrangements for a service in India through the Indian broadcasting authorities, but those arrangements are still very far from being carried through, and until they have been carried through the service with India will have to wait. Broadly, I think I am entitled to say that in the development of overseas wireless services this country is very fully maintaining its position in the world.

The CHAIRMAN: I should be glad if the Postmaster-General could explain to me how all these matters can be included in this discussion.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The reason is that in operating between the Post Office of this country and other countries we in this country have control. If it were a question of operating in the other direction, we should not have control, and therefore no question would arise on this occasion. As, however, the operation is between the Post Office of this country and other countries there are certain questions, which I have not specifically mentioned, but which do affect the matter. There is the question whether these services should be operated by the Post Office itself or by licence to other companies, and that is why the question now arises.

The CHAIRMAN: Could the Post Office grant a licence to Australia, or does it grant a licence to itself

Mr. McGOVERN: On a point of Order.

The CHAIRMAN: I am now dealing with a point of Order, and the hon. Member cannot raise a second point of Order until this one has been dealt with. What I want to find out is where the question of a licence comes in in this matter.

Mr. McGOVERN: You cannot raise a point of Order. I want to raise a point of Order—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. McGOVERN: My point of Order—

The CHAIRMAN: I am trying to find out whether this discussion is in order, and therefore I directed a question to the Postmaster-General so that I might know. When this is settled, your point of Order will be in order.

Mr. McGOVERN: It is on that point of Order that I am raising my point of Order.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better wait until this is settled. [Interruption.]

Mr. McGOVERN: All right. Do not get excited.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The position is this. The Post Office is dealing with these telegraphic and telephonic services, and the Post Office acts either itself or by licence. It would be quite open for the right hon. Gentleman to ask me questions with regard to the telegraphic service to Canada and the Dominions. Had he done so, I would immediately have been dealing with a service operating by licence. It is impracticable in a discussion to separate the discussion on our telegraphic from that on our telephonic services. They run into one another. As part of them are conducted by licence and part by the Post Office, it would not be possible to have a debate unless the general theme were covered. It happens that the right hon. Gentleman asked me questions only about the Post Office, with which I was dealing. He might have asked me only about the services which were operated by licence.

The CHAIRMAN: This Act deals with licences, and I assumed the discussion is confined to licences.

Mr. McGOVERN: In view of the difference of opinion and waste of time, would it not be better to send for Mr. Speaker to have this matter cleared up?

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. McGOVERN: Seeing you are in doubt, would it not be better to send for Mr. Speaker and have a Ruling on this matter?

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker has nothing to do with questions and explanations arising on the Commitee stage of the Bill. The Chairman is entitled to ask the Ministers' assistance when he is in doubt.

Commander SOUTHBY: Surely, if we wish to deal with the question of communication between this country and Canada or New Zealand, it must be in order, because there cannot be any communication except under licence from the Postmaster-General or direct from the Post Office 4 Under the Section of the Act to which I referred, it is surely within the province of the right hon. Gentleman i This is the only opportunity we can get for discussing communications between ourselves and the Dominions, which can take place only by virtue of a licence which the right hon. Gentleman alone can grant.

The CHAIRMAN: I want to find out exactly what are the precedents arising on this matter. I do not want to make any precedent, I want to know from the Postmaster-General, before allowing this extended discussion on what I interpret to be the Act, whether there is a. precedent for this wide discussion. The Postmaster-General assures me there has been a precedent: therefore, I let this discussion go on.

Commander SOUTHBY: I would like to ask a question. It seems to me that the way we do the business with regard to wireless telegraphy is rather slipshod, because every year we have to re-enact this Act under the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act, and it is the only Act dealing with that very large subject of wireless communication. Last year the right hon. Gentleman was approached as to whether it would not be possible for him to pass an Act which would be up-to-date and deal with the whole question of wireless telegraphy and not to have every year discussions upon a law, which, if we do not re-enact, lapses, with the result that a state of chaos would ensue. If, for any reason, we do not pass this to-night, there would be complete chaos as far as wireless communications are concerned. I make the point as strongly as possible that one of the primary reasons for wireless is communication between ship and shore.
The Postmaster-General has such drastic powers in this respect that, if he refuses a licence to a ship, that ship would not be allowed to sail by the Board of Trade. If that is so important, surely we should have a permanent Act which would deal with all the questions raised to-night, and under which it would be possible to raise such questions as those of communication between ship and shore and between this country and the Dominions. It was suggested last year that it would be a bad time to introduce such an Act, because of a conference which was about to take place at Madrid. Can the Postmaster-General give us any information about the forthcoming conference? Do we know the date yet I Do we know what is going to be discussed there? Have we made any suggestions as to the agenda?
It is always very difficult to raise matters affecting broadcasting. If a question is put to the Postmaster-General, he does not control broadcasting, and, consequently, cannot reply. In a way, the discussions on the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill are the only opportunity which we have to raise the question of broadcasting. We have raised the matter of Russian broadcasting to-night. What responsibility has the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the reception of any broadcast messages? Suppose, for example, a broadcast message was heard by Rugby station or any station on a proper wave length, which was either subversive propaganda or of a highly indecent character, would it be part of the duties of the Postmaster-General to report that to the Minister concerned? Would it be within the province of his Department to make the report that such propaganda had been heard? Would he have any power in the matter? The only way he could deal with it, of course, would be by jamming. I have seen it stated that the Poles had to build a great station which plays Puccini for 24 hours on end in order to jam the Russian broadcast. Grand opera subsidy is out of order on this occasion, but it might give the right hon. Gentleman the weapon he requires. What are the right hon. Gentleman's powers in regard to this matter of reception? No station can exist in this country for receiving purposes except by this licence. Therefore, if a
station existed for an improper purpose, he could close it down by refusing a licence. What is his position with regard to a Government station which receives improper propaganda over the wireless?

Mr. BROCKWAY: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman in order in discussing this propaganda? As far as I understand it, these messages are not received by any receiving station in this country, but are received directly by the subscribers. Is he in order in discussing it?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The point is this. No receiving station can be set up in this country except by licence. While it would not be in order to discuss the substance of any message, it is in order to discuss what control the right hon. Gentleman has.

Commander SOUTHBY: Exactly, because the fact that a receiving station receives at all, postulates that it has a licence from the right hon. Gentleman. If it came to his notice that a station was set up to be in communication with some subversive broadcasting centre, he could take the necessary steps to see it was closed down. What is the possibility of having an up-to-date Wireless Telegraphy Act introduced This method of discussing every year an Act which if not passed— —

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: We might make it perfectly clear that the Postmaster-General is responsible for receiving stations which relay and broadcast. The Postmaster-General has no power over private receiving sets which are licensed except to refuse the licence.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not think we ought to let that Ruling stand without a word of comment. No private receiving station can exist except by virtue of the Postmaster-General's licence given under this Act, and if the Act were not on the Statute Book, the Postmaster-General would have no power to give such a licence.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Postmaster-General's licences run into some millions. Naturally, he has no control over what they receive, but he would have special control over central relaying and receiving stations.

Commander SOUTHBY: It would be "working the apparatus" if it were put
up for the express purpose of getting into communication with some outside centre for an improper purpose. I should like to ask what the hon. Gentleman's responsibilities are with regard to the way that broadcasts from here to the United States are sent. I had a corn-plaint from the United States the other day about the method in which the announcer on this side made his announcement to the, United States public. There was considerable feeling about, the way he announced, the speaker. It takes place every Sunday between 1'2.30 and 12.45. An address is generally given by come public individual here, preceded by an announcement from the United States broadcasting station and an announcement by the British announcer. It seems to me that some control should be maintained. over the way that is done, because in this case, in introducing Mr. Wells, the announcer said that anyone who had not read at least one of his books was fit for a museum. That is a matter of opinion, and it is not the sort of thing that should go out to the United States, a thing which insults a great number of the people in that country who do not like being lectured from this side. If they are being lectured under licence from the hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that he should look into the matter and see that care is taken that, under licence from him, nothing is done that offends the susceptibilities of someone else.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me what power had to make a report to the Foreign Office about subversive propaganda. There is no duty of that sort laid upon me at all. I explained that some months ago the Post Office listened-in to messages from Moscow and, had they contained any matter of particular interest, it would have been within the discretion of myself as Postmaster-General to deal with it as I thought fit, but it contained matter of no interest at all and the process of listening-in after a time came to an end.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Would the Foreign Office know unless the hon. Gentleman reported to it? Has the Foreign Office any contact with these messages from abroad

Mr. LEES-SMITH: You can only know what these messages from abroad con-
tain by tuning up your set to the wavelength and listening. There is no Foreign Office department specially provided to carry out that function that I know of. It is not a duty laid on the Post Office, but it is a duty that the Post Office undertook some time ago.

Commander SOUTHBY: The Postmaster-General has powers to prevent the passage through the mail of indecent literature. If there were a broadcast being received in this country of a grossly indecent nature, it must be someone's duty to stop it, in the same way that it is his duty to stop any indecent publication from abroad coming through the mail. Surely, if some station broadcasts a lecture of an abominably indecent and improper kind, it must be someone's duty to listen and report it. It would be possible for some station to take out a receiving licence and arrange for a station abroad deliberately to broadcast something of this character. Surely it would be within the hon. Gentleman's province to take steps to prevent it.

Sir K. WOOD: I gave notice to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that we were going to raise the matter. I hope he will soon be present.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have no doubt that foreign messages are received by millions of private sets throughout the country. It seems to me if some private receiver did. anything to propagate any foreign message of an improper nature that would he a matter for the Home Office. I cannot see that under this discussion the Postmaster-General has any jurisdiction.

Sir K. WOOD: I appreciate that this matter is not without difficulty, but I do not think it is sufficiently appreciated that, but for this Act, the Postmaster-General would not be able to give arty licences at all. If the Act were off the Statute Book, as is being formally proposed to-night for the purposes of discussion, it would be open to anyone in the country to do what he liked. The regulations of broadcasting would cease altogether, and everyone would be able to do as he liked. Directly you concede that, you are met by this position, that the Postmaster-General is giving licences under the Act to individuals, even if they number millions, and I submit that we are able to discuss the conditions. In
fact, they have been discussed, and, while the discussion took place with your predecessor in the Chair we have looked up the debates on previous occasions, and a very large amount of time has been spent, not on this particular matter, which has arisen during this year, but on the general regulations and conditions under which the Postmaster-General exercises his powers. It is simply because under this Act he has those powers that I submit we are able to discuss the conditions under which he uses them.

Mr. BROCKWAY: The Postmaster-General has told us he reports to the Foreign Office certain messages. That may be in order, but to discuss further the substance of those messages is clearly out of order.

Sir K. WOOD: We are not attempting—

Mr. BROCKWAY: You have had your answer.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Member allow me to proceed? We are not in Russia. We have liberty of speech. We are not attempting for a moment to discuss the substance of the broadcast addresses.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is a very difficult point. It appears too me the only function the Postmaster-General could have is that, if certain forms of broadcasting were received that he thought reprehensible, he could take steps to jam them out. Whether under this Vote we can discuss the responsibility of the Foreign Office or Home Office for these messages, I must rule out.

Sir K. WOOD: That has already been permitted, because the Postmaster-General has already described his relationship with the Foreign Office.

Mr. HARDIE: With regard to the objection to messages coming into this country from another country, we want to find out whether there is a method whereby the Postmaster-General can control these things. Is it not possible when an objectinoable message comes in in that way to jam it I should like to know whether the Post Office would have power to jam such a message. If not, what protection has a licence-holder of a receiving instrument against what he may deem to be objectionable? If this point
were dealt with, we should be able to get to the bottom of the matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has made a substantial point. The question of jamming out, I think, would be a matter for the Postmaster-General, but we cannot have either the Home Office or the Foreign Office introduced into this discussion.

Sir K. WOOD: I should like to make a few observations, not upon the question of broadcast addresses, but upon the statement of the Postmaster-General in regard to dealing with objectionable messages of this kind. Before you occupied the Chair, Mr. Dunnico, the Postmaster-General stated that before these particular broadcast messages and addresses were delivered he had 'arranged, many months ago, for officials of his Department to listen in, and he went on to say that the messages were rather wearisome and dull, and that after a time he ceased to require the officials to perform this duty. He stated that he was now seized of the importance of these officials renewing this duty, and he would see to it that in future it was properly performed. He made another observation which seemed to be in direct contradiction to that statement, because he appeared to wish to impress upon the Committee that this matter did not fall within his official duties as Postmaster-General. It has already been stated in the debate that the Foreign Office, who did not seem to be alive to the situation or desirious of dealing with matters of this kind, knew nothing of the broadcast address, regarding which a protest has been made by this country, until one o'clock on the morning following, the address being delivered as the Postmaster-General says at nine o'clock at night. That was the effect of the statement of the Foreign Secretary. We must accept it, but it is very difficult to understand why the Postmaster-General was not able to communicate with the Foreign Office long before that time. I want to obtain an assurance from the Postmaster-General so as to avoid the possibility in the future of the Foreign Office saying that they did not know of an occurrence until hours after it had occurred. I hope that he will take immediate steps to communicate these matters to the Foreign Office.

Mr. LAWTHER: His cat whisker was off

Sir K. WOOD: I do not know the purpose of the hon. Member's interruption.

Mr. LAWTHER: You do not understand wireless.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member will have an opportunity, if he desires, to say what he wishes to say. I want the Postmaster-General to make it clear that he will see that there can be no excuse on the part of the Foreign Office in the future that they have not had sufficient time to study a particular address. They are in many cases hours, and in some cases days, behind in making any protest. I am glad that a representative of the Foreign Office is present as he will understand the position. I gather that the Postmaster-General will give prompt attention to this matter in future. I have not the slightest criticism to make in this respect. He has, undoubtedly, had regard to these particular addresses, and he gave up his duties in connection with them only because he did not think that anything of importance was likely to arise. But now he will see to it, particularly on the 9th December, when we are threatened with a repetition of the same sort of thing, that his officials will be on duty, and I believe that the Foreign Office will have no excuse for saying, some hours later, that they have not heard anything about the matter. When we raise these matters in the House I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is now present, will be fully seized of the position, and that there will be no repetition of an endeavour to procrastinate and avoid dealing with this plain duty.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: This matter goes somewhat further than anything which is going to happen on the 9th December. The licence holders, who number 3,000,000, allow youngsters all over the country to hear what is transmitted over the wireless. Quite apart from what may happen on the 9th December, we now know that it is possible for undesirable things to come unexpectedly over the wireless and that children may hear them.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what undesirable things will take place on the 9th December?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am not referring to anything which is likely to happen on the 9th, December, but to the general principle of the matter. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, it is possible that from some country where English is spoken we may have transmitted over the wireless some grossly indecent history, or something of an undesirable nature.

Mr. HAYCOCK: May I ask the hon. Member what he thinks is undesirable

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Gentleman will have au opportunity of making any remarks he wishes to make later on. What machinery have the Post Office in order to protect licence holders under the Act of 1904, not merely in regard to such lectures as may be transmitted over the wireless on the 9th December but in regard to the kind of broadcasts which I have indicated? Is there any permanent official or department in his office whose duty it is to do what he has told us has been done in a haphazard way? He told us that he kept watch some months ago, and that after a time the messages received were so dull that it was not necessary for him to continue listening to what came over the radio. That seems to have been a public-spirited act in which he took steps to watch what was coming over the wireless, but he gave it up. I would press, in regard to the renewal of the Act of 1904, that the Post Office should have a permanent observer of foreign stations to detect what comes over the radio, so that undesirable things could at once be noticed and steps taken to report the occurrence to the proper quarter. In that way, quite apart from political matters, our children at least might be protected from hearing something which we might not wish them to hear over the wireless. I suggest that the Postmaster-General should give an undertaking to establish a look-out in the Post Office to deal with the matter we have been discussing this evening.

Mr. BOWEN: If the Postmaster-General is to speak again, I should like him to say whether he would safeguard the interests of the nation and of licence holders by assuring us that warning will be issued to the public at large that terrible things may be expected on the 9th December, and that every wireless
owner should switch off for a long period. One can easily anticipate that the susceptibilities of hon. Members opposite would be very much disturbed at the terrible reckoning that is going to be taken of us on the 9th December. The Postmaster-General, therefore, in dealing with the question of licences—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are getting a great way from the substance of the debate when we anticipate the nature of possible messages on 9th December.

Mr. BOWEN: I have no desire to anticipate discussions of any substance. My difficulty has been to understand the substance of previous speeches. I suggest that the time of the House of Commons is being wasted with this type of question.

Commander SOUTHBY: I think the Postmaster-General was going to answer some of the queries which I put to him, when various points of Order were raised, and he was prevented from doing so.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) has suggested that I should employ officials listening-in to discover whether by any chance indecent broadcasts are sent here from, I presume, foreign countries. I have never heard that any such broadcasts have been sent and, excepting as a matter of relieving unemployment, I cannot conceive that any Government that was riot wildly extravagant and fantastic would occupy the time of a considerable number of officials for several hours a day listening to and transcribing broadcasts from all the foreign stations in the world. I assume that the hon. Member for Farnham has made his observations because we are not now discussing the matters of urgent importance with which this House has to deal.
10.0 p.m.
The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) asked me whether it would not be the right time now to transform this Act into a permanent Act. He also asked certain questions as to the next International Radio Conference, which is to be held in Madrid. That Conference will take place in 1932, and the class of question
that will be discussed will be as to whether we might not by international regulation take steps, by fines and penalties, for dealing with certain wireless offences which are injurious to all nations; for instance, the sending of frivolous S.O.S. messages by wireless operators at sea. With regard to the suggestion that the Act should be made permanent. I would paint out that as soon as we attempt to make the Act permanent we shall have to deal with certain issues which are by no means non-controversial. I will not occupy the time of the Committee by explaining what those issues are. My right hon. Friend the late Postmaster-General knows them very well, and he knows that they are by no means non-controversial. The late Government did endeavour to introduce such a Bill as is suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom, but they were compelled to withdraw it before it came to this House. When such a Bill is introduced, it will require a considerable time in this House, and I am afraid that the present Government, any more than the previous Government, are not in a position to undertake the task. I can promise, however, that we will do it probably towards the end of 1932. The International Convention will meet early in 1932, and will probably pass certain resolutions which will require international action and international legislation. It will then be essential to introduce a Bill and, as we do not want two Bills, I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend that in 1932 I shall introduce a Bill to deal with the matter.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move, in the Schedule, page 4, to leave out lines 8 to 20.
The somewhat cryptic reference in the Schedule deals with an Order for the marking of imported meat and eggs. It is a very good Order indeed, and I (ma d e it myself in the year 1920, and I have not a word to say against the Order, as such, but since that time we have acquired a large number of powers in regard to the marking of produce. Is it not possible to substitute the use of
some of those acquired powers for these old powers which are worked iv virtue of the powers possessed once by the Ministry of Food which has been dead 10 years. The Ministry of Food Continuance Act is still kept in being in order that the powers to provide penalties for non-compliance with the order for the marking of imported meat and eggs, may be enforced. That that should be so after such a lapse of time is rather ridiculous.
Is it not time that this matter was taken in hand? The Postmaster-General may reply: "A number of those years were years when your own party were in office." That is true, but as the years go on the position becomes worse, and it is worse now because we have arrived at this point that, so long as this Act. remains in existence for this sole purpose, persons can be prosecuted and subjected to three months imprisonment, with or without hard labour, or to a fine not exceeding£100, or to both penalties, for the infringement of an Order, a copy of which it is almost impossible for anyone in this country to procure.
I have no doubt the Minister of Agriculture has had dug up for him from the cellars of the Ministry of Agriculture, decently dusted and cleaned for him, a copy of the Order, but if you search the Library of the House of Commons from top to bottom and if you search every law library in the country, you will not find a copy of this Order, under which it is still open for a subject of the Crown to be prosecuted. What you will find in the Book of Statutory Rules and Orders is a statement that these temporary rules and orders made by the Minister of Food, and there were thousands of them, owing to their temporary character, have not been reprinted. Therefore, in the Books of Statutory Rules and Orders in the Library or in any law library, there is no copy of this particular Order, and there can be no copy of it.
I take this opportunity of putting this matter to the Government and the Department concerned, with the suggestion that this matter should be dealt with. It is hardly decent that a subject should be liable to be exposed to prosecution of this kind, and I would suggest to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that he should make representations in the proper quarter to try to bring to an
end this state of things which is beginning to approach the dimensions of a scandal.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): The point which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) is a perfectly correct and sound one, and it has been frequently considered. I can assure him that the Minister of Agriculture will consider the suggestion which has been so forcibly put.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,

Mr. KELLY: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 25 to 30.
This Amendment deals with what is known as the two-shift system for young people and Weiner,. I want to know why, when employers say that industry is so bad that they cannot find work for the great number of people who desire it, we should still retain this two-shift system under which young people are compelled to start work at six in the morning and work until two in the afternoon and others commence work at two in the afternoon and continue till 10 at night. This is bad for those people, as anyone who knows anything about our big towns will realise. Why is it that this Act of 1921, which was intended to operate for five years in the first instance and to be continued under an Order of the Secretary of State is still continued in operation? I hope the Government are seriously considering the termination of this method of working for women and young people. Have the organisations of the workpeople where it is in operation been consulted before Orders have been made, and have any of those organisations protested against it? Has the Home Office revoked any of the Orders, say, during the last 12 months? I hope that the Government will tell us to-night that the Act and method of operating it are to come to an end. Did the Home Office consult the Joint Industrial Councils on which the workpeople are represented before considering any of these Orders? The feeling is so great against this kind of work that I hope we shall have some satisfactory reply. Six o'clock in the morning is a wrong hour to make those people go to work, and ten o'clock at night is a wrong hour at which to keep them at work.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I would ask the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, who I understand will reply, if he will give us details of what trades employ people at six in the morning and ten at night?

The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) has asked me certain questions in relation to the two-shift Orders and he wants to know whether the employés are consulted. There is provision in the Act for the Joint Industrial Council to make representations, and, if representations are made to the Home Secretary, his power to make Orders in that industry comes to an end. The employés are consulted before the Order is made, and there must be a majority in favour of the Order. There is power to revoke the Order if the conditions laid down by the Home Secretary are not complied with or if abuses of any description have arisen. I am not in a position to say whether any of the Orders have been revoked on these grounds, but I will let the hon. Member know the particulars.
As regards the question put by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) these orders cover a large number of trades and industries, and it will be very difficult for me to reply without making a long statement. If he wants that information I will certainly send it to him. As regards the principle the Government are in full sympathy with the object of the hon. Member for Rochdale. The two-shift system has found its way into our industrial life. It was first of all regarded as a temporary condition, and at the present time affects some 40,000 workpeople. If the two-shift system was brought to an end this year it would mean grave dislocation and would no doubt contribute to the industrial depression. I can assure the Committee that the Government do not desire or intend that this system shall become a permanent part of our industrial law or our industrial conditions, and at the earliest opportunity they will take steps to ensure that the issue of these orders shall cease on the direction of the Secretary of State.

Mr. KELLY: Can the Under-Secretary say that there is some hope of this system coming to an end?

Mr. SHORT: The hon. Member cannot expect me to tie myself to a date. I have given him an assurance that the Government do not desire the two-shift system to become a permanent part of our industrial life, and at the earliest moment they will take steps to discontinue it.

Amendment negatived.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of SIR K. Noon:

"In page 5,to leave out line 11."

Sir K. WOOD: This is an Amendment, purely formal, to leave out the Rent Restrictions Act, and I am moving it because this is the only Parliamentary opportunity we shall have of raising a matter which affects many millions of people throughout the country. I say at once, speaking on the part of most hon. Members of this House, that I do not desire to see the Rent Restrictions Act brought to an immediate end, but l do desire to obtain from the Minister of Health some more satisfactory assurances than we have had hitherto on what is generally regarded as a very important matter indeed. It is rather an extraordinary thing that, although this Government has been in for what appears to us a very long time indeed, we have had no opportunity of discussing this Act, and, strange to say, have had no word from the Government on the question. This silence is all the more strange and remarkable when we remember the large number of statements which were made by the present Minister of Health.
No one spoke more freely, no one gave more undertakings, no one I need hardly say gave more promises than the present Minister of Health, but since he attained office and responsibility, there has been complete silence about the Government's intentions in regard to this Act. Only the day before yesterday, an hon. Member below the Gangway, failing legislation by the Government, himself introduced a Bill dealing with this very important matter. It is true that after some 18 months of hesitation and procrastination, the right hon. Gentleman has resorted to the usual refuge of the present Government when they are faced with matters of difficulty and doubt and when they are overwhelmed by the situation
confronting them. He has set up a Committee to consider the Rent Restrictions Act. I have no particular quarrel with setting up a Committee to deal with intricate and difficult questions, but if that was the intention of the Government, if it was their desire that something should be done for both landlords and tenants under the operation of the present Act, then it was very unwise to wait 18 months before taking action. The Minister himself ought to have brought in proposals immediately, or, if he felt that the duty was too much for him, if he felt that the difficulties were so great that he could not take the responsibility of presenting proposals to the House, then he should have set up the committee of inquiry immediately.
I do not think many hon. Members will quarrel with the statement that the very numerous communications which hon. Members receive from both landlords and tenants, concerning the operation of this Act, constitute a matter of constant difficulty to them. I have received numerous complaints, for instance, in connection with small estates in this country as to the impossibility of winding up those estates, owing to the operation of this Act in relation to mortgages. It is a most onerous position in connection with the estates, very often of small people, that at the present time under the Act, in regard to mortgages—

Mr. KELLY: On a point of Order. The Amendment on the Paper proposes to leave out line ii of page 5 of the Schedule, but I cannot find any line 11 in page 5 of the Schedule. May I ask what Amendment is the right hon. Gentleman moving?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet moved his Amendment, but I assume from what he has said that he intends to move to leave out lines 5 to 10.

Mr. KELLY: The Amendment on the Order Paper proposes to leave out line 11 and there is no such line.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Amendment as it appears on the Order Paper, has been corrected and I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman when he rises, can move any Amendment he likes so long as it is in Order.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 5 to 10.
I will move the Amendment in the form desired by the hon. Member. As I was saying before I had this rather unlooked-for assistance from the hon. Gentleman, one of the great difficulties of the present situation arises out of the impossibility of a very large number of beneficiaries being able to receive their proper share under intestacies and wills, and it is most unfortunate, whatever the particular remedy may be, that these people have to face only now the fact that a Committee has been set up. I suppose nobody would care to prophesy when we shall have its recommendations, and still less when the Government, having received those recommendations, if ever, will bring forward any Parliamentary proposals concerning them. Therefore, I think the position of the Government is most unfortunate, and it adds another class to those who are suffering from the procrastinations of the present Administration.
Hon. Members opposite have often raised, and I think rightly, the question of rents under the present Act. have no desire to support any particular view on this occasion, but it is astonishing that the right hon. Gentleman should have such a passive and docile body of followers, who have been content, having regard to the undertakings and promises which they have given, to allow this matter to remain as it has done for so many months, and even now to be content for the matter to be referred to some Select Committee. I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite may desire to say something, I should suppose by way of condemnation, front their point of view, about the matter being left so long, but I think many of us will agree that it is a most unfortunate thing that the Government have allowed for so long, and are still permitting by this device of a Committee, these scandals, as they are in many oases, of sub-letting at very extortionate rents. I think we all know—

Mr. SUTTON: You originated it.

Sir K. WOOD: That does not deal with the situation. I have constantly heard that complaint from hon. Members opposite during the last few months, but it does not answer the criticism to reply,
"You are responsible for it." That is no answer to the unfortunate people who have to suffer, or to the large number of people who listened to the promises of right lion. Gentlemen who occupy the Government Bench and of their supporters at the last Election. It is no answer to say, "This may be under an Act of Parliament, and therefore we must leave matters as they are." That is an excuse which the Minister of Health frequently gives us at Question Time. He says, "My predecessor did this," or "I am only doing what was done before." That may satisfy hon. Gentlemen on this side, but it can hardly be satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen who support him, and who gave so many undertakings at the last General Election. Therefore, I beg the hon. Gentleman who interrupted ma, to think this matter over, and not to repeat that excuse again.
I was observing that the question of sub-letting demands the attention of the House, and, if necessary, of separate legislation. It is true that the Minister has adopted this device of setting up a committee, but this is a very urgent matter. It is not unusual to find in a large number of cases, especially in industrial centres, a person who is a tenant of premises sub-letting various rooms to tenants at most extortionate rents. Some explanation is required from the right hon. Gentleman why, after the considerable attention which he has given for so many years to these problems, he has not been able to devise some method of dealing with the matter. I can understand him saying that there are certain intricate matters connected with rent restriction, and that he would prefer a committee to inquire into them. I have a great deal of sympathy with that view, and I have no doubt that we shall get from this committee considered views which we should not otherwise obtain. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was so emphatic in days gone by on the question of sub-letting, and was so free with the advice which he gave his predecessors, that I should have thought that he would really have come out with some bold plan in the form of a Bill—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only question before this Committee is whether these Expiring laws should be continued
or not. It will not be in order to discuss matters involving fresh legislation.

Sir K. WOOD: I will avoid that, and will refrain from making any suggestions with regard to legislation. I will put it in this way. After the bold declarations that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and his repeated accusations against his predecessors of inhumanity for not dealing with this matter, one is surprised at being confronted to-night merely with a proposal from the Labour Government to continue this Act for another year. It is rather inhumane both to the tenants and to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors, who were maligned so much on this matter, to treat the question in this way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some explanation. It may be that he has thought over the matter, that he has had advice, and that he has given more study to these problems, and has come to the conclusion that it is better after all for a committee to investigate them.
I do not know that I would venture to quarrel with him on that point but for the fact that he has delayed so long in making up his mind. There are two things about this Government that one can confidently claim; one is that they make up their mind, and the other is that they will not make up their mind; and I do not know which is the worst. This is a case of not making up their mind, and their action in leaving this matter for 18 months is one which we ought to condemn. I wish we had some representatives of the Liberal party here tonight to support us. The hon. Member who is present no doubt worthily represents that party—all sections of it—but after all they have said on the Rent Restriction Acts I had hoped they would have been in better force to-night. Our purpose in raising this matter is to give us an opportunity, which we have not had during this Parliament, of hearing the right hon. Gentleman declare himself, hearing him either make a clean breast of it or offer apologies to the right hon. Member for Edghaston (Mr. Chamberlain) and myself, for all that he has said about us in the past, and hear him also, I hope, indicate some more vigorous action in this matter on the part of the Government.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): We have had a characteristic speech from ray right hon. Friend—elusive, evasive, inconclusive, the speech we would expect from him on such an occasion. On one matter I agree with him. I. can quite understand that it seems a long time since he crossed the Floor of the House. On one point I must differ from him. He has complained of the delay of this Government in making up their mind. In this we at least have an advantage as compared with the previous Government; by implication we have a mind to make up, and, so far as I recollect, they had not. There are charges about a strange silence, a complete silence, on my part on this subject. Believe me, it is nothing to the profundity of the silence of the right hon. Gentleman when he was in office. Rarely did he raise his voice. He has always added to the gaiety of Parliament, and in order to refresh my memory I have looked back upon most of his speeches on this question. In my rather light study of his speeches, because the hour is late, I have not been able to find any clear statement of opinion on any single problem affecting rent restriction. I have heard him say "on the one hand" and "on the other hand," I have heard him plead for the landlord and for the tenant, but never on any single occasion have I ever heard him give expression to one simple statement of principle or of opinion on this great question. Now he comes forward in armour on his mighty steed, and we do not know whether he is for the tenant or for the landlord. The history of this question shows that three Government committees have been appointed and 10 Acts of Parliament have been introduced, for none of which I was responsible, but for which we can place the responsibility on the party opposite. The last committee to investigate this question was appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), and if it is good for him to appoint a committee is it not equally good that I should appoint a committee.
The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the question of sub-letting, which he says is an urgent problem so important as to demand legislation. May I point out that the scandal of sub-
letting grows less every time a now house is erected, and since 1924 the number of houses built has been very considerable. Scandalous sub-letting depends upon the shortage of houses, and every new house that is built diminishes that difficulty. Six years have elapsed since the late Government had an opportunity of dealing with this urgent scandal, but the problem to-day is not what it was, six years ago.
Why all this new urgency? Why it this question a scandal to-day when it was not considered to be a scandal at the General Election of 1924'? I suppose the reason is that four-and-a-half years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich was unable to express his real mind, and, not having had an opportunity of expressing the faith that was in him, he has now got a great opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman referred to some phrases which he said were. used by me, but I do not remember ever having used them. He pointed the finger at me and said that I was inhuman to the tenants and cruel to my predecessor. My predecessor, I have no doubt, will take care of himself, but I am glad to think that beneath the right hon. Gentleman's waistcoat there throbs a heart that cares for the tenant. After this strangely long period of quiescence on his part, we welcome him as one who cares for the under-dog.
Let me put to the Committee, because the problem is really an important problem, the real question that faces us to-day on this matter of rent restriction. The majority of the houses that exist to-day were built before the War. The majority of these houses, during the War, were controlled. The process of decontrol began in 1923, under legislation directed and inspired by the right hon. Gentleman. We have, therefore, to-day, among pre-War houses, two big groups, those which are controlled and those which have been decontrolled—two categories of houses, the rents of which, so far as one can gather, are widely different. In addition to that, we have a large number of new houses which have been built under various housing schemes, and which have never been rent-restricted at all. We have a situation to-day which is utterly illogical, which is most con-
fused, and which sooner or later will. have to be dealt with on broad and comprehensive lines.
The problem does not end with the fact that to-day people are paying extraordinarily varying prices for the same commodity. It is not merely that. it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said—this problem seems to be especially on his mind; I hope that he is not a tenant who has been sub-letting, and I hope that he is not a victim of this sub-letting—it is true that, because of the shortage of houses, there has been subletting of parts of houses at rents which, according to the newspapers and according to inquiries, have been proved to be extortionate. One of the problems which confront everyone who occupies my position is that it is really only by an accident that the Minister of Health happens to be responsible for this particular aspect of legislation. I have no administrative duties to perform in relation to it. No information in the ordinary way of administration comes into my Department with regard to it. I am as much in the dark as any ordinary citizen. What I do know broadly as a citizen is that the process of decontrol has gone on steadily. I do not know precisely how many houses have been decontrolled; no one knows.
When you are faced with a situation like that, unless you are going to take a leap in the dark—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would never do that; indeed, I am not certain that he would leap in the sunlight—there is a case for inquiry, because this is a problem on which the facts cannot be ascertained by any Department of State apart from independent inquiry. [Interruption.) It is all very well to ask, "Why not?" The right hon. Gentleman knows more about it than I do. He has had three committees of inquiry, while at least this can be said for me, that I have had no lot or part previously in any inquiry on this question. Previous Governments, however, in the short period since 1915, when this system of rent restriction was started, have had three inquiries. There has not been one since 1923, which is seven years ago, and is pretty nearly the middle of the period, so that I think I am behind the average in this matter of inquiries. It is perfectly clear, and all
Members of the Committee know perfectly well, that, if there is a serious intention of dealing with this problem, it can only be done on the basis of lull and impartial inquiry.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why we did not do it last year. Why this urgency on his part? lie says it is no answer to say that he did not do it, but at least it is a fair point to make against him. I have been in office for one-third of the time that he was. I know it seems a long time to the right hon. Gentleman, because he has said so, but other people do not agree. [HON. MEMBERS: "The electors do I"] I am glad to have assistance from hon. Members opposite with regard to unemployment, though it is a new kind of interest we have discovered from the opposite benches. To any body of men, whatever their interest may be in rent restriction, whether they look at it as landlords or tenants or sub-tenants or as members of public authorities—and, after all, public authorities are the largest house owners in the country to-day—it is quite clear that until we have analysed the problem as it exists to-day, further legislation is impossible, and therefore an inquiry had to be set up, and it is now going forward.
The main point is that although the right hon. Gentleman began his speech by calling this a formal Amendment, the effect of it, if it should be carried—and he knows it will not be—would be that the Rent Restrictions Act would come to an end as far as England and Wales are concerned at the end of December, and in Scotland in May of next year. He does not intend that. He dare not go down to West Woolwich and say, "I, on my galloping steed, to-night charged through the ranks of the Government and abolished rent restriction." He is in that mood to-night, but he could not do it, and it is perfectly clear, as everybody knows, that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment must be withdrawn. As long as there happens to be a pressing need for these old houses which are rent-restricted, it would not be fair in the interests of the large masses of people who to-day live in them, to abolish rent restriction. I cannot argue the merits of rent restriction, and I satisfy myself with saying that I think we have been well advised to set up this inquiry, that it will be an exhaustive inquiry which will throw light on the problem, and will
give us guidance for future legislation to deal with a very complicated problem. I end on this note, that however amusing the right hon. Gentleman may be on this occasion, he realises equally that this problem is one of very considerable gravity, and that we cannot pretend at this stage to leave the Rent Restrictions Act to die at the end of December. Whatever the sins the present Government may have committed, the Rent Restrictions Act must be continued for another year.

Captain BOURNE: We have all enjoyed, I think, the passage-at-arms between the two right hon. Gentlemen. There are one or two questions I want to put to the Government. First of all, can the Minister say when he hopes the committee will report? We all realise that it is a very difficult question in which there are many hardships both to landlord and tenant, but I hope that the committee will report with reasonable diligence, because the sooner this matter can be cleared up the better.
The other point that I want to put is this. The Act applies both to this country and to Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman has put up two inquiries, one dealing with the ordinary operations of the Rent Restriction Act and another jointly with the Minister of Agriculture dealing with tied cottages. Presumably the report of the two committees will not be altogether suitable for Scotland because, as I understand the law of the two countries, the law of leasehold and the letting of properties is completely different and I very much doubt whether the law relating to England will be suitable for Scotland, and we ought to know whether the Scottish Office is proposing to hold a similar inquiry, so that if the English Committee makes a report on which it is possible to found legislation, we shall be able to legislate simultaneously for Scotland. It would not be a good thing if we abolished or modified rent restriction in this country and kept on the old form in Scotland. I feel that we ought to have a statement both from the right hon. Gentleman and from the Secretary of State for Scotland on what, after all, is a purely formal Amendment, because it is the only chance of asking. the Government what they propose to do.

Mr. HARBORD: I was struck, in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir Kingsley Wood), with the valuable time he took up while contributing so little to the debate in the way of solid matter. It gave me the impression that he was simply playing with time with a view to an election which he hoped might come in the early future. It is a matter of great surprise to me that, when a Minister of the Crown, he did not take advantage of the ample opportunities on so many occasions to do something to cure the evils that exist under the present Rent Restrictions Acts. There are many useful suggestions he could have made. For one thing, there is the large number of houses that are being held up for extortionate prices and the people who by force of circumstances have had to pay extortionate prices to get houses to cover their heads. That is far more important than trifling with the time of the House. This is my third Parliament, and I can never remember anything in the way of practical suggestions for the benefit of the masses of the people that has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He is the cheeky little cock-sparrow of politics

Sir D. HERBERT: Now that the House has spent the, best part of an hour listening to the representatives of the two Front Benches indulging in mutual recriminations and a certain amount of scintillating wit—and they have since been joined in a similar occupation by the temporary acting leader of the Liberal party—it is perhaps excusable for a back bench Member who was not necessarily quite satisfied with all that was done by the last Government any more than hon. Members opposite to try and see if he can introduce a slight element of seriousness into the debate. I trust that the few observations which I want to make may occasionally be heard in between the fits of rather noisy laughter which always come at this time of night from a certain quarter of the House. There are one or two things which ought to be said on this subject which have not been said in the debate to-night. Personally, I feel very considerable doubt indeed, in spite of what has been said, as to whether the balance
of argument is or is not in favour of continuing the operation of these Acts as they are at the present time.
11.0 p.m.
I can imagine what would have happened if we had been sitting on that side of the House and hon. Members opposite had been sitting here—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member will be kind enough to allow me to continue, he will, no doubt, be able to answer my speech afterwards if he wishes. I can imagine the hard things which would have been said if complaints of this scandal-and it is nothing less than a scandal-of sub-letting, had been treated by Members of the Conservative party with the levity with which it was treated by the Minister in charge to-night. If you take the undoubted scandal there is with regard to sub-letting, if you take the comparatively small amount of hardship there is at the present time with regard to the control of houses, and if you take the real and serious hardship which arises where control exists unfairly and unnecessarily, I doubt very much indeed whether the balance of argument would be in favour of a continuation of that control.
The question of mortgage interest has not been referred to. It would have been perfectly easy for the Government, if they had devoted a little attention and thought to this matter, to have continued these Acts only in part, in order to free mortgages from the operation of the Acts. There are innumerable cases known to every member of my profession where the winding up of estates has been delayed for years owing to the impossibility of calling in mortgages on those small properties. In 99 eases out of 100 it would be no hardship if these mortgages were called in. Mortgages on small property of this kind mostly represent the investment of the small savings of the poor classes in this country. The cases are innumerable in which sensibly-minded, careful people who had a few hundred pounds that they had saved put the money into what ought to be a sound and good security, namely, mortgages on small property. In many cases where a man has died in the early days of these Acts, those coming after him would have been immensely benefited if his savings, to which they were entitled on his death, could have been placed at their disposal,
to enable them to start in business, or something of that kind, instead of the whole business being stuck under these Acts, so that they could not get the money, and they see no prospect of getting it. The Government might at least have freed the mortgages from the operations of these Acts, and I sincerely hope that whatever Government may be in power in another year, if rent restriction of some kind should be necessary, that it will be continued by some new, modified and much less extensive Act, which will protect the really hard case where protection is wanted and will do away with the immense amout of hardship and the immense amount of injury to legitimate business and finance which exists at the present time under the operation of Acts which are thoroughly and absolutely out of date.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I want to put in a word on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) in reply to the extraordinary attack made by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Harbord). If the hon. Member for Yarmouth had any idea of the kind of work which my right hon. Friend did during the four and a-half years that he was a Minister of the Crown, he would not have spoken as he did. I suppose the reason why he has harboured such extraordinary views is that he was not a Member of this House at that time, and therefore, presumably, he was not following with the attention that it deserved the political activities of this House. I congratulate the Minister of Health on the fact that he has at last realised, in his own words, that it was necessary to set up a committee for his own guidance. Eighteen months ago members of the party opposite and of the Government knew everything about everything. It is satisfactory to us to learn that at last they have realised some of the difficulties of governing this great country, and that they have not got the absolute monopoly of brains and intelligence which they claimed to have, because they have found it necessary to set up, I believe, to date, 55 committees to assist them in the work to which they have set their hands.

Mr. STEPHEN: Some hon. Members on the Labour benches are treating this as a matter for laughter, but it is a very serious matter affecting the great mass
of the working-classes. What was said from the opposite benches is true in this respect that the Rent Restrictions Acts have never been continued without a protest having been made from the Labour benches that an amending Bill was not brought in to reduce rents. One hon. Member has asked if Scotland is to be included in the Inter-Departmental Committee's inquiry. There are Scottish representatives on the committee. One committee which was appointed since 1923—I think by the last Government—to deal with the question of Scotland did report, but the late Government introduced no legislation on the lines of the report. I want to make it perfectly plain to-night that one of the matters in connection with that report was a recommendation for a reduction of the rents that were ruling in Scotland. The 'Committee should realise that when the Rent Restriction Act was passed it was based on the high rates of wages. All these years have gone by and wages have come down, yet there has been no corresponding reduction in rent. I think that the Government might have introduced legislation along those lines, but I do not want to pursue that matter. There does not seem to be a representative of the Scottish Office on the Front Bench now that this matter is being raised. On every occasion when it has been before the House we have protested when the Tory Secretary of State for Scotland or the Under-Secretary was not present. T think that either the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary should be here to-night to deal with the situation in Scotland.
As the Minister of Health knows, there are at present two categories—the houses 'which are controlled and those which are decontrolled. In Scotland, and more especially in the West of Scotland, the Labour Housing Association are having a very difficult time because of the uncertainty whether the houses are controlled or not. They have raised this matter with the Lord Advocate. This is one of the meet urgent questions in the West of Scotland, particularly in view of the uncertainty that exists and the impossibility of getting the Lord Advocate to act in regard to prosecutions that might be undertaken under the Rent Restric-
tion Acts. I am sorry that the Lord Advocate is not here to-night nor any one representing the Scottish Office, as this matter was to a very large extent due to action begun in Scotland. It is intolerable that this Bill should be allowed to go through without a protest. We ought to be able to get some assurance from the Scottish Office that these people will receive some protection. Rents are being charged for
houses which the tenants maintain are controlled houses, but 'which the factors maintain are decontrolled. When the Lord Advocate has been asked about the matter, he has said that he cannot take action until the question has been settled in the Scottish Courts.
Some of us are of the opinion that the Act clearly gives the Government an opportunity of taking action in any case where the landlord is seeking to obtain more than the standard rent. The position of the tenant is that if he goes into the civil court and loses his case he has to pay£20, his wages would be seized and he would lose his employment. I have put such a, case to the Lord Advocate and have been informed that the person did not wish to pursue the matter further. I found afterwards from the constituent himself that that was the position. He was afraid to face an action in the civil court in case he lost it, and I hold that the Lord Advocate, in view of the Blackburn decision of the Court of Session, should take action in some of the cases which have been put before him by the Labour Housing Association. I was much interested in the badinage between the late Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Health and the allegations of insincerity which the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) applied to my right hon. Friend. My own Bill has been introduced and it is wide enough to deal with the question of sub-letting which seems to interest the right hon. Member for West Woolwich so much. I hope he will see that no hon. Member on his side of the House will oppose the Second Reading. I think the Minister of Health will be quite willing to give an assurance that as far as he is concerned—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The bon. Member cannot go into that matter now.

Mr. STEPHEN: Anyway, I take it that the right hon. Member for West Woolwich is going to show his sincerity in that way.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I am glad that the debate has been brought back to a serious level. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has made what is often described as a characteristic speech. He enumerated all the Acts which have been passed by his predecessors and then he made a complete summary of the present Government's position. I can summarise his summary in one sentence: "Thank goodness we have done nothing except appoint a committee."

Mr. SULLIVAN: I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). I understand that there will be another opportunity of raising this question, but it is regrettable that something has not been done up to now in the matter and that it has not been treated as seriously as we in Scotland wish it to be treated. There has been a great amount of trouble in Scotland and various methods have been employed to de-control houses. In the case of a tenement, for instance, one tenant may be persuaded to move out and then all the other tenants are moved round and the whole tenement is declared to be de-controlled. On this side of the Border the assumption is that when a house is empty and the landlord lets it to a new tenant, it is decontrolled. The only case which has been brought to the Court of Session in Scotland on the point is that mentioned by the hon. Member for Camlachie and it was decided in that case that the fact of one tenant leaving a house and another coming in, did not constitute de-control. As a matter of fact, according to the law in Scotland, there is scarcely any such thing as a de-controlled house. While in England, as I say, the assumption is that it is only necessary to shift out one tenant and put in another and to declare the house de-controlled. That is unfortunate, because it is an evasion of the Act and once the owner has de-control, he can put up the rent to any figure he likes and the tenant has no redress. In cases where there is a scarcity of houses that is a great hardship. As to the suggestion which has been made from the other side in regard to sub-letting, we regret
that houses are sub-let, but hon. Members must bear in mind that it is not only the poor who sub-let. All over London and a great part of England one finds the same thing. Indeed, it is more common here than it is on our side of the Border. If we are going to pass legislation of any kind, the great thing will be to see that the Act is kept in such a way that the tenant will get the advantage from it which he was entitled to get.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.

In pursuance of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), Mr. SPEAKER hag nominated Richard John Russell, esquire, to act during this Session as a temporary Chairman of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means, in the room of Sir Archibald Henry Macdonald Sinclair, baronet, C.M.G., resigned.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [MONEY].

Resolution reported,

"That it is expedient to raise to seventy million pounds the limit on the amount of the advances to lie made by the Treasury to the Unemployment Fund under section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, as amended by subsequent, enactments, which may be outstanding during the deficiency period."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Miss Bondfield, Mr. P. Snowden, and Mr. Lawson.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

"to raise to seventy million pounds the limit on the amount of the advances by the Treasury to the Unemployment Fund which may be outstanding during the deficiency period," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

CUNARD (INSURANCE) AGREEMENT BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir D. HERBERT: There are one or two points to which the attention of this House should be called before the Bill goes through. It is a Bill which I, for one, have no wish whatever to oppose, but it is an unfortunate example of the Government having failed, as they have failed so often, when they have done a necessary or a proper thing, to do it efficiently and in the proper way. Under the first part of this agreement the premium for the construction risk is fixed at the rate of 30s. We have never yet had any satisfactory explanation as to why the rate was so fixed instead of the matter being dealt with in the same way as the marine risk is dealt with in a later part of the agreement, so that the premium to be paid should be the true market rate whatever it might turn out to be.
I know it has been stated by the President of the Board of Trade that this rate was fixed after consultation with members of Lloyd's, but I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the Government did not consider this matter sufficiently carefully or go into consultation with all the persons and bodies with whom they ought to have gone into consultation before fixing this rate. I am certain that the Government have failed to deal with this matter efficiently, on their own confession, by reason of the fact that they have apparently consulted nobody beyond certain members of Lloyds. Any business man who is in any way concerned with these very large insurance transactions, knows perfectly well that the matter is not dealt with by Lloyds entirely. A risk of this kind is under-written to an enormous extent by companies, and I believe I am right in saying—and I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman opposite can correct me—that the Government did not before they settled this draft agreement, consult the representatives of the large companies who are concerned in taking risks of this kind.
The serious part of this question arises in this way. The Government have not merely fixed a rate of 30s. for this construction risk, but
they have undertaken to ensure at that rate so much of the risk as is not taken by the ordinary market at that rate. If that rate—as I believe it is—is lower than the average market rate would have been if the matter had been dealt with by the market as a whole, it means that the Government are going to be saddled with a larger amount of the construction risk than they ought to be. I am told by people who ought to know something about this thing, people who, although members of Lloyds, and who are known as insurance brokers and are the people who know the markets in these matters better than anybody else, that the real difficulty in regard to the insurance of these two new ships is the marine risk, and that in all probability there would have been little or no difficulty in getting the market to take the whole of the construction risk. There may have been some doubt about it, and in those circumstances I do not blame the Government for agreeing to take so much of the construction risk as the market might not take, but I do blame them for not making it a provision that they would take only so much of the risk that the market could not take at the market rate. I have no doubt about it whatever. It is a matter of common talk among those who are concerned in this kind of business that the Government have made mistake. It is a serious mistake, and one for which, as far as I can see, there is no excuse. The Government ought to have consulted many more people than they did in this matter if they were going to fix the rate at all, but I have yet to know what excuse there is for having fixed a rate for the construction risk instead of leaving it to be dealt with in the same way as in the agreement for dealing with the marine risk.
I will add only one more thing, upon which I will not enlarge, because it was dealt with to some extent a few nights ago. It is the question of the sixpence after the first period under the construction contract has expired. There again, in spite of what the President of the Board of Trade has stated, his view does not seem to be that which is held by the people who really know about this particular kind of business. Their point of view is that the risk in the later 'stage is not so much less, as the right hon. Gentleman has
stated, but rather more. It is a greater and more dangerous risk, because, when a ship of this kind is being built, there is at first nothing but the shell, and fire, which is the great risk, can do but little damage, comparatively speaking, and there is not much risk of fire. In the last stage, however, when a great boat like this is fitted with all its expensive fittings, they are inflammable, and far more inflammable than the mere shell. Therefore the risk of fire is immensely greater, and that is the kind of risk which the market takes. There again, we are entitled to say that the Government has failed to go into these matters as fully as they ought to have done, and to take the best advice as to the rates which they ought to have fixed.

Mr. KINLEY: On the previous stage of this Bill, I raised certain questions to which, so far, I have not received any reply. We cannot allow the Bill to go forward without once more pressing upon those who are responsible, the necessity for satisfying those of us who are most directly interested that this is not to be entirely a one-sided matter in which the public interest is left out. The Government are giving a large measure of assistance to this company, and we are entitled to ask whether something cannot be done to persuade them to cease the wholesale discharge of their employés at 65 years of age.

Mr. SPEAKER: On the Third Reading we must confine ourselves to what is in the Bill and not introduce something which is not in the Bill.

Mr. KINLEY: May I ask that the questions which were put on a previous occasion and were not then replied to may now be answered? Would that be in order?

Mr. SPEAKER: The fact that those questions were not answered on a previous occasion does not affect the position that on the Third Reading of a Measure we cannot allow a discussion to develop on matters which are not contained in the Bill. That is a very well-known Rule of the House.

Mr. KINLEY: In that case we shall have to confine ourselves to the technical side of the subject. From that point of view, may I ask whether this
Bill is confined to the Cunard Co., or whether it is linked up in any way with an arrangement which has been entered into between the Cunard Co. and the White Star Line to run ships alternately, and so to cut down their regular sailings, leading to wholesale discharges among crews? Is that the position, or are other companies excluded, making this a water-tight arrangement between the Cunard Co. and the Government? Further, I would like to know whether the Government have fully protected themselves so far as their commitments in respect of unemployment are concerned. There is a good deal of uneasiness on that point in the district in Scotland where this ship is being laid down. At first those who live in the district and have worked at shipbuilding all their lives, but are now unemployed, were pleased to learn that the Government had agreed to assist the Company to build this new vessel; but now they find that this financial assistance is not to be used in what one may term legitimate construction, but that the Company are contemplating arrangements which will enable them to get the major part of the construction work done by boy labour, by the employment of large numbers of apprentices to the exclusion of capable and fully qualified men.
If we can have a satisfactory assurance on those points, then we shall be much more satisfied than we are at present. I urge that, if on any future occasion there should be a request for assistance from any company in this country, that assistance should not be promised until guarantees have been given that they will, as employers of labour do their duty to those they employ. This is not a matter of expediency, but it is the primary duty of those companies to see that employment is given under proper conditions.

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: I wish to ask whether the Minister will make a statement in reply to a question which I put on the Second Reading of this Measure in regard to the accommodation of seamen. I then pointed out the extremely bad conditions under which the seamen of this country are accommodated, especially on very large liners. I realised at that time that it was too late to insert anything in the Bill, but I did ask that the Minister should communicate with
the Cunard Company with a view to their providing more decent accommodation than has hitherto been provided on this class of steamers. Is the Minister prepared to make those suggestions to the Cunard Company, because I think that that should be done?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's arguments might be used as reasons for voting against the Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: I think it has already been established that when railway companies come before this House asking for special benefits or safeguards from the State it is the practice at all stages to raise grievances and public complaints against the operations of those companies if the Bills promoted by them did not actually contain Clauses dealing with those particulars. I ask you now, Mr. Speaker, if the Bill we are discussing does not compare, in a large degree, much more closely with a railway Bill asking for powers and State advantages than an ordinary public Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: I fancy the hon. Member wishes to ask me that question as a point of Order. It certainly has been the practice on large railway Bills for a general discussion to take place on the Second Reading on the management of the company or in regard to grievances raised by hon. Members as to what is being done or is not being done. That always takes place on the Second Reading of such a Bill and certainly not on the Third Reading. On the Third Reading the discussion is always confined to what is in the Bill. It is only on the Second Reading of railway Bills that a wider discussion can take place, and I cannot allow a similar discussion to take place on the Third Reading of this Bill, which is certainly not the same thing.

Mr. KELLY: There are many parts of this Bill where risks are mentioned, and I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, in view of that fact, whether it is not adding to those risks if a company discharges a large number of those men who should be carrying on the work of the ship? Would not a depleted staff mean a greater risk and consequently that the insurance would be a much more serious matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: That seems to be a rather subtle way of getting round my Ruling.

Mr. MACLEAN: If the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) is only partially correct, it would appear that of the people employed in the construction of this ship a large number will be only apprentices, and therefore not sufficiently qualified to carry out the work properly. Is not that adding to the risk, and will not any risk after the ship has been launched be greater than it would be if the work had been done by fully qualified men?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I do not know how far it is possible for me to answer the points that have been raised, because they have been rather on the borderline of order. So far as the construction of the ship is concerned, the Board of Trade does possess fairly extensive powers in regard to the supervision of construction, and those powers will be exercised to the full. Moreover, I think it is fair to assume that a company like the Cunard Steamship Company will not take any undue risks in the construction of a ship that is going to cost so much money.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) my right hon. Friend stated in the early discussions on this Bill that the department did take the best advice that they deemed necessary and possible before coming to any conclusion as regards the insurance of this vessel, and, so far as any other investigations or inquiries have taken place, I do not think that the department has any need to regret or feel that they have made any mistake in this matter. I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the marine risks are greater. In any ease all the advice that we have taken goes to suggest that the practice in connection with the insurance of vessels is all along the line provided for in this Bill.

Sir D. HERBERT: I do not want to go into the technicalities of the matter, but the insurance of one single big risk like this on one single ship is the difficulty. The amount could have been insured quite easily by the market if the risk had been in smaller units, but with one
single big risk of total loss the difficult risk was actually the marine rather than the construction risk.

Mr. SMITH: As I have said, we acted on the best advice we could get, and I suggest that this is the usual procedure in regard to insurance, though I admit that from the nature of the case this is perhaps rather different from previous constructions. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is correct in his assumption that the Government will be burdened with too heavy a risk in this matter. We have received assurances in that direction, and although there may be some difference of opinion as to whether the rate is adequate or not, I think that in the end it will work out satisfactorily from the Government's point of view.

Mr. MORLEY: What about the accommodation for the crew

Mr. SMITH: I have said that I cannot go into these questions, because it has been ruled that they are not provisions contained in the Bill, and it is not possible to deal with them now. As have indicated, however, in so far as the Board of Trade have powers, and we have certain powers in regard to the supervision of the construction of vessels, those powers will be exercised to the fullest possible extent in seeing that the provision necessary for the accommodation of the crew will be as adequate as possible. I think that hon. Members will realise that in the construction of new vessels the accommodation is of a better character each time a ship is constructed.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I do not want to oppose the Bill, because one welcomes the fact that the State is engaging in this type of insurance, and also because a large number of workmen are to be employed on the construction of a civil liner, which is infinitely preferable to a warship. We realise, however, that in this Bill the State is stepping in because the Cunard Company could not obtain insurance facilities through the ordinary channels and we wish to urge upon the Government that when the State gives assistance to great capitalist or financial concerns in that way it should demand a minimum of conditions for the workers in return for that assistance. We pro-
foundly regret the fact that this Bill has reached Third Reading without some Clause to that effect.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Godalming and parts of the parishes of Godalming rural and Compton, in the rural district of Guildford, in the county of Surrey, which was presented on the 28th day of October, 1930, be approved."—[Mr.Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this is one of eleven Electricity Orders coming on at this time of night. It is only right and in accordance with the best traditions of the House that, if we take these Orders at this time, we should pay some attention to them. It is unusual to have such a large number on one evening, and I think that should be protested against in the interests of the House. I will take this first Order, so that we may rest assured that the right hon. Gentleman in charge has gone into them with that sense of duty which always distinguishes him. I should like to know the total area and also the approximate population which is covered by this particular Order. If the right hon. Gentleman can give me an answer to these two simple questions, I shall be satisfied as far as this particular Order is concerned. I feel sure that with his great industry ho will be able to give me these figures and relieve my mind as to whether this is a fit arid proper Order to pass without further consideration.

Commander SOUTHBY: I do not desire to detain the House, but I should like to ask whether for the convenience of the House it would not be possible on future occasions when such Orders have to be taken to take rather fewer, so that hon. Members who wish to do so may raise points without unduly detaining the House at such a late hour.

Sir D. HERBERT: May I ask whether it is not the case that in the last Parliament members of the party opposite raised this kind of question on several occasions and that an informal understanding was arrived at that not more than five Orders should be taken on any one night? I think that was the understanding arrived at at the instigation of hon. Members opposite, and I ask in these circumstances that they should carry it out.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Of course, if there are real points of criticism which hon. Members in any part of the House wish to raise on this matter and which they would prefer to have explained, I should not be unwilling that particular Orders should be postponed, but my advice was that there was no opposition to these Orders. Usually, when particular points are to be raised, hon. Members are good enough to let me know in advance so that I can he fully prepared to deal with them and to give them in advance information which often meets the difficulty which they have in mind. I quite agree that it is rather a large number of Orders, but I was advised that it was not in excess of the gentlemen's agreement which was supposed to exist on this subject. I know the point is raised by all Oppositions, whether by this party or by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I am not guilty myself because I have never been in Opposition, so nothing can be said as to my own record in this matter. It is rather urgent that these Orders should go through, and I had been advised that there was no opposition to them. Certain of them involve possible employment at a fairly early date and I should be sorry to postpone them. I am prepared to lose my last train once again if it meets the needs of the House of Commons. The hon. Member has asked me what is the area and the population of the parishes. Certain areas have been added to the undertakings involved, but I will surrender straight away and tell him. I have been so industrious on things that are really urgent that I have not looked up that point because it did not seem to matter to any extent. But I will let him know with the greatest of pleasure and with all the courtesy in the world. I hope I may now have my Resolution.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Godalming and parts of the parishes of Godalming rural and Compton, in the rural district of Guildford, in the county of Surrey, which was presented on the 28th day of October, 1930, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Ashbourne and Sudbury, in the county of Derby. which was presented on the 28th day of October, 1930, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Macclesfield, in the county of Chester, which was presented on the 28th day of October, 1930, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the townships of Clackheaton and Liversedge, in the urban district of Speuborough, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 28th day of October, 1930, he approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Halt-whistle, part of the rural district of Bellingham, and part of the rural district of Hexham, in the county of Northumberland, which was presented on the 28th day of October, 1930, be approved."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Saltash, the
urban district of Torpoint, and the rural district of St. Germans, in the county of Cornwall, which was presented on the 28th day of October, 1930, be approved."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's previous explanations but I should like to have his assurance in this one case. I notice that some of the Cornish Members are present. I have some connections with Cornwall and I should like an assurance for practical purposes as Cornwall is not now represented in the House.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: What assurance does the hon. Member want?

Mr. WILLIAMS: That the hon. Gentleman's Department believes this is absolutely all right.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Certainly. This is very simple. These parishes want a supply and they ought
to have it.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Saltash, the urban district of Torpoint, and the rural district of St. Germans, in the county of Cornwall, which was presented on the 28th day of October, 1930, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the burgh of Hamilton, in the county of Lanark, which was presented on the 28th day of October, 1920, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Elec-
tricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish or division of Llanfrechfa Lower, in the rural district of Pontypool, in the county of Monmouth, which was presented on the 28th day of October, 1930, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural districts of Brampton and Longtown and part of the rural district of Carlisle, in the county of Cumberland, which was presented on the 28th day of October, 1930, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the transfer of the undertaking authorised by the Porthcawl Electricity Special Order, 1926, and other purposes, which was presented on the 28th day of October, 1930, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the township of Hensingham, in the rural district of Whitehaven, in the county of Cumberland, which was presented on the 28th day of October, 1930, be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve o'Clock.